guild_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It mentions payment and x402 challenge behavior, but it is unclear whether the tool is read-only, whether it writes anything, or what side effects occur beyond returning results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is repetitive and includes awkwardly phrased paragraphs. The same idea is restated multiple times, and the payment instructions are not well organized, making it harder to scan than necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

It gives a rough return format example, but there is no output schema and no explanation of failure modes, pagination, limits, or how the payment mechanism affects results. The context is not sufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description only lightly covers min_trust and limit, and mentions capability in an example. It does not clearly explain api_key or x402_payment, despite those being significant parameters in the schema. Overall parameter meaning is incomplete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states that the tool finds agents by capability and ranks them by trust, which gives a basic sense of purpose. However, the phrase 'ranked by attack trust' is ambiguous and reads like a typo, so the exact selection criteria are unclear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides a 'Use when asking...' trigger but does not explain when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like guild_best_agent or guild_index. The payment-related guidance is dense and confusing rather than actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.