Show the promotion ladder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantive risk context beyond them: canary and production tiers "send real orders," which tells the agent why the ladder matters before acting. It also confirms read-only behavior in prose and notes the return contents, though that overlaps with the existing output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then the tier model and safety note, then read-only constraints. Every sentence contributes, though the explicit statement of return contents is arguably redundant given the output schema.

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-only tool with both annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what a tier is, which tiers carry real-order risk, when to consult it, and that mutation is impossible here.

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 (ladder_path) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description never mentions the path argument or its default, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured field — the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Show the promotion ladder") and immediately defines the payload: the tier a strategy is on plus its promotion/demotion history. No sibling tool (list_runs, read_run_report, show_ledger) deals with tiering, so an agent can route here without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit timing ("Use it before acting on a run, to know what the strategy is allowed to do") and an explicit exclusion ("promotion is never available through this surface"). The only gap is that it does not name which surface or tool does perform promotion, so the agent must search elsewhere for that.

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