guild_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it reveals no paging controls, one logical GET request, no auto-fetched continuation pages, 100-row/256 KiB local array limits, truncation reporting, refusal of oversized records, and non-inferred membership status. This is unusually thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 purpose is front-loaded and nearly every sentence contributes an operational constraint. It is dense and there is mild redundancy between the tested limit/offset finding and the 'does not auto-fetch continuation pages' sentence, but this does not significantly hurt readability.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the required input, query semantics, paging absence, size limits, truncation, and oversized-record refusal. It does not describe the output row fields or the full set of allowed status values, leaving a minor gap in the contract.

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, and it does meaningfully. It gives status behavioral semantics (not inferred, example with active, forwarded as supplied) and treats guild_id as explicit and policy-required. It does not enumerate valid status values, but for two parameters the added guidance is substantial.

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?

Opens with a precise action/object pair: 'Read guild membership rows for an explicit guild_id.' This clearly states what the tool does and the required resource. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as guild_list or guild_contributions, so it misses the top score for differentiation.

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 phrase 'for an explicit guild_id' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate, and the note that required inputs reflect tool policy/upstream requirements adds practical guidance. However, it never states when not to use this tool or names alternatives, leaving exclusion criteria unstated.

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