stickers_get_guild_sticker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact return structure ('{id, name, description, tags, format_type, available}') and clarifying that the description field contains raw moderator-authored data and that the human-readable text response fences it. This is extra context beyond the annotations. No contradictions 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 succinct and well-structured with bolded sections for Purpose, When to use, and Returns. Every sentence provides useful information with no filler. The most critical information (purpose) is front-loaded, and the alternative guidance is kept to a single bullet. It is appropriately sized for a simple 2-parameter read 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?

Given the simple scope (2 parameters, no enums, output schema present), the description is quite complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns, including a subtle detail about the descript field formatting. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly used. The only minor gap is not explaining the 'availability' field or what 'fencing' means in more detail, but these are edge concerns.

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 with descriptions for both required parameters ('Guild owning the sticker' and 'Sticker to fetch'). The tool description repeats that it fetches a 'single guild sticker' and implies these parameters, but it adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema fully explains the parameters, the description's contribution is minimal, fitting the baseline 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fetch a single guild sticker including description and tags.' This uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single guild sticker'), and the scope is distinct from sibling tools like stickers_get, stickers_create_guild_sticker, and stickers_modify_guild_sticker. The distinction is further reinforced by the 'When to use' note about inspecting a known sticker.

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 provides a clear 'When to use' section: 'Inspect description / tags / availability of a known sticker.' This gives explicit context for when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases. Given the sibling list includes other sticker tools, the absence of direct 'instead use X' guidance is a minor gap, but the context is clear enough.

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