guild_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers extensively. It reveals the transport limit issue, the local limits (100 rows, 256 KiB), truncation reporting, refusal of oversized records, single GET request, and no auto-fetch of continuation pages. This is comprehensive transparency beyond what annotations would normally provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is verbose and repetitive. The phrase 'Other declared filters are forwarded' appears twice, and the text could be tightened. It is not a model of conciseness, though it is structured with the key constraint first.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers essential operational details: required name, limits, truncation, refusal behavior, and pagination. It does not describe the return format, but for a list endpoint with no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to call it correctly and interpret basic results. Minor gaps remain around field descriptions.

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 'name' is required and effective, and that other filters are forwarded but not guaranteed to work. However, it does not explain the meaning or expected format of sort_by, language, username, or membership_type. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for the non-required parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search guilds by an explicit name filter.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like guild_find and guild_members by focusing on the name-based search and the required filter. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 states the core usage: search by name filter, and explains why (unfiltered response exceeded transport limit). It also warns that other filters are forwarded without guaranteed effectiveness, guiding the agent to rely on the name filter. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it stops short of a full 5.

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