soundboard_get_guild_sound

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, lowering the burden. The description adds useful behavioral nuance: the return object shape is stated, and the distinction that 'name remains raw Discord data; untrusted_text provides a separately fenced copy' is a non-obvious implementation detail that goes beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with clear bolded headings for 'Purpose' and 'Returns'. It front-loads the core purpose immediately and uses minimal, high-signal wording. Every phrase contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 low complexity (simple ID-based fetch) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It even goes beyond the schema by explaining the raw-name vs. fenced untrusted_text nuance. A minor gap is the absence of error or edge-case behavior, but annotations cover the read-only safety profile, so this is acceptable.

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?

Both parameters (guild_id and sound_id) are already fully described in the input schema with string types and patterns, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or usage syntax; it relies entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 clear specific verb+resource: 'Fetch a single guild soundboard sound.' This directly distinguishes it from siblings like soundboard_list_guild_sounds (list) and soundboard_create_guild_sound (create). The 'single' qualifier reinforces that this targets one item by ID.

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 implies usage by stating 'Fetch a single guild soundboard sound'—this suggests using it for a specific sound rather than listing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or when-to-use guidance is provided beyond the inherent singular nature.

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