onboarding_get

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it only verifies Discord API readback, not the end-to-end join experience. It also discloses that prompt/option text is raw Discord data and that untrusted_text is a separately fenced copy, giving the agent important expectations about the return data.

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 well-structured with bold section labels (Purpose, Verification boundary, Returns, See) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple GET tool.

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 one-parameter, read-only fetch tool with annotations and an output schema, this description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, limitations, return fields, and a documentation link, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 for the single guild_id parameter, and the description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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+resource: 'Fetch a guild's onboarding configuration.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like onboarding_modify. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 'Verification boundary' provides clear context on what this tool does and does not verify, explicitly warning that when prompts are enabled, the actual join flow must be validated with a client before declaring completion. This is a strong when-not, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for that validation.

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