discord_get_guild

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return-shape context (Markdown summary vs JSON fields), but since an output schema exists this is largely redundant; no permissions, rate limits, or edge cases are disclosed.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the return list second. Slight redundancy in re-listing fields already present in the output schema keeps it from a 5.

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 tool with two optional params, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the essentials. The only real gap is the absence of usage routing against sibling tools.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax, defaults, or format guidance beyond that, matching the baseline 3 when the schema does 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get details for one server') and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like discord_list_guilds or discord_get_channel, so it stops short of a 5.

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 offers no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The only usage hint ('Omit to use DISCORD_GUILD_ID from .env') lives in the schema, not the description.

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