discord_get_membership_screening

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant, but the description adds real behavior the annotations do not cover: the Community-feature prerequisite and the fact that the response is a JSON form object carrying a version field. That version note is practical context for subsequent update calls.

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 action and the domain meaning, followed by the constraint and return shape. No filler or restated title material.

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 with a full output schema and readOnly annotations, the description supplies everything an agent still needs: the concept, the prerequisite, and the response nature. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% ('Discord server (guild) ID (snowflake)', pattern included), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about guild_id, which is fine but not additive – 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the server's membership screening form') and defines the domain concept ('the rules/questions new members must accept'). It does not name its write counterpart discord_update_membership_screening or discord_set_membership_gate, so an agent must infer the read/write split from the verb alone.

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?

Provides one useful precondition ('Requires the server to have the Community feature enabled'), which implicitly tells the agent when the call will fail. It never routes the agent between this tool and the siblings that modify the same screening form or gate, leaving the choice to inference.

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