guild_find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so richly. It discloses JSON-encoded string wire types, a single logical GET, no continuation-page auto-fetch, array row/size limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. It also warns against assuming ext=true expands the response.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, and nearly every sentence carries behaviorally important information. The wording is dense and occasionally awkward, with a missing period after 'request' and the confusing 'included extra fields absent with ext=true' phrase, but there is little redundancy.

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 a low-complexity single-get tool, the description covers request behavior, wire types, response limits, and safety well. However, it leaves gaps around return-value shape, error behavior, and the semantics of username and ext, so an agent is still guessing about optional parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that id is the explicit lookup key, but ext is described only through an opaque warning about extra fields, and username is never semantically explained. The line about filters being forwarded as supplied does not tell the agent what these parameters actually do.

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?

Opening sentence 'Read one guild by its explicit ID' states a specific verb, resource, and lookup key. This clearly distinguishes it from list- and member-oriented guild siblings, even though no sibling is named. The rest of the description is caveats, not purpose.

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 tool is clearly positioned as a single-guild lookup, implying it should be used when the caller already has an explicit guild ID. However, it never names an alternative like guild_list for when an ID is unavailable, and it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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