guild_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the search spans all channels/threads and returns newest-first, but it doesn't mention permission requirements, default-server fallback, or what the result shape looks like.

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 a single sentence with the key facts front-loaded: action, resource, scope, and ordering. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It doesn't cover return format, permissions, or how to choose between guild_search and channel_search/dm_search, though the schema and scope statement cover the core invocation needs.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with all 8 parameters individually documented including defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one useful nuance—that omitting channel_id searches across all channels/threads—but otherwise relies on the schema for parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') and a clear resource ('a server's messages'), and further specifies scope ('across all channels and threads') and ordering ('newest first'). This distinguishes it from channel-scoped siblings like channel_search and channel_messages, and from dm_search by focusing on a server.

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?

The description gives a clear usage context: server-wide message search. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'across all channels and threads' scope strongly implies when this tool is appropriate versus channel- or DM-scoped searches.

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