guild_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral nuance: structured name/description remain raw server-owner data while the human-readable response fences them—information not present in annotations. This goes beyond the baseline but doesn't cover auth or rate limits.

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 compact and well-structured with three bold sections, using only two sentences that each earn their place. No filler or redundant content.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, and a single required parameter, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and an important output nuance. It is complete for a simple read-only fetch tool.

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 a clear description for guild_id ('Guild to fetch'). The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Fetch guild metadata') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling guild_get_* tools (e.g., widget, welcome screen, prune count) by focusing on the core metadata object. The listed return fields further reinforce its scope.

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 'When to use' section provides clear use cases ('server overview; compute boost-tier-dependent caps'), which gives solid context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use, 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.