discord_get_guild_widget

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by noting the conditional behavior when the widget is enabled and explaining that the JSON endpoint is publicly readable, which matters for privacy expectations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core read action and followed by the important conditional/public-exposure caveat. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema details.

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?

The tool is simple, has a fully described single parameter, and an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. It covers the key behavioral nuance: widget data is returned only when enabled, and the JSON endpoint is publicly readable.

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?

There is only one parameter, guild_id, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with a snowflake pattern. The description does not add syntax or selection guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Read the server's widget settings' and adds the exact outputs returned when the widget is enabled ('public widget.json and widget image URLs'). This clearly distinguishes it from the mutation sibling discord_set_guild_widget and from general guild-info tools.

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 gives clear context for use: it is the read side of widget inspection and reports what the public JSON endpoint exposes. It does not explicitly say to use discord_set_guild_widget for changes, but the read-only framing and sibling name make the alternative reasonably inferable.

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