get_guild_basic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. The verb '조회합니다' indicates a read-only lookup, which is helpful, but the description does not disclose any edge behaviors such as rate limits, error conditions, or the meaning of the optional date parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 a single compact sentence that immediately communicates the core resource and examples. There is no filler or redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only lookup tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of explicit connection to get_guild_id, which could help agents understand how to obtain the required oguild_id.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'oguild_id' and 'date' already documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 ('조회합니다' = retrieves) and names the resource ('길드 기본 정보' = guild basic info) with examples like members and skills. It is clear enough to identify the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as get_guild_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_guild_id or get_ranking_guild. It also does not mention the prerequisite workflow of obtaining oguild_id via get_guild_id before calling this tool. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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