guild_get_vanity_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns {code, uses}, with code being null if no vanity URL is configured. It also notes the Community/Partner perk requirement, which is beyond the annotations and helps set expectations. No contradictions exist.

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 extremely concise and well-structured, using bold headers for Purpose, When to use, and Returns. Every sentence earns its place, and the essential information is front-loaded. There is zero fluff or repetition.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an existing output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It even handles the edge case of a missing vanity URL. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without ambiguity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, and the only parameter guild_id already includes the description 'Guild to query'. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter, relying entirely on the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Get the guild vanity URL invite'. It further specifies it is a Community/Partner perk, which clearly differentiates it from generic invite tools like invites_get or invites_list_channel. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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?

A dedicated 'When to use' section explains that this tool is for displaying the configured discord.gg/<code> shortcut and its usage count. This gives clear context for when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is sufficient for selecting this tool among the many guild-related siblings.

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