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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it declares read-only status, states that the tier grants nothing, is never stored, and is not read by the boost multiplier. That is exactly the kind of negative capability disclosure that prevents an agent from assuming tier is a stateful or boost-affecting property.

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 mode semantics are front-loaded and efficient, but the middle sentence about on-chain creation, unlock, and the one-percent threshold is domain education that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. A tighter version would keep the mode contract and the 'grants nothing / read-only' caveats and drop the derivation mechanics.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing what each mode returns (a tier, how far the next tier is, or the tier table). Combined with the behavioral caveats and full parameter semantics, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the exact return shape (fields, units) remains unspecified.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains what each parameter asks for, that they are optional and independent, and the default behavior when neither is supplied (returns the tier table). It also clarifies that size/balance is not an input, so the same term maps to the same tier at any balance.

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 identifies a specific resource (the lock tier) and enumerates the three distinct answer modes: tier for a given term, tier a wallet holds, or the full tier table. It implicitly distinguishes itself from simulate_lock_boost by noting the boost multiplier does not read this tier, though the distinguishing verb ('returns'/'reads') is only implied rather than stated.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use `days` to ask which tier a hypothetical term would reach, `wallet` to read a wallet's current tier, and neither to get the table, and it states the two inputs are optional and independent. What is missing is an explicit exclusion or named alternative for when an agent should prefer simulate_lock_boost instead.

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