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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what is included (base price, currency, description, published benefits) and explicitly what is excluded (member-only entitlements, capacity, member counts), which prevents an agent from expecting capacity or member-count data.

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 purpose and then the field-level scope. No filler; every clause (included fields, excluded fields) 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it instead spends its budget on the inclusion/exclusion scope that the output schema alone might not make obvious. Complete for a single-param read tool.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the schema fully documents the handle. The description only restates 'by page handle' with no added syntax or format guidance, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 a Patreon creator's published public membership tiers') plus the key input ('by page handle'). The scope is narrowed further with 'public' tiers, making it distinguishable from the broader patreon_creator sibling.

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 phrase 'by page handle' implies the calling context, and 'public' tiers implies when this is appropriate vs. member-only data. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over patreon_creator or patreon_explore, nor any prerequisites or rate-limit context.

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