Show the promotion ladder

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by enumerating the tier ladder (research, paper, shadow, canary, production) and flagging the consequential fact that canary and production send real orders. It also confirms no mutation path exists here, which is behaviorally material.

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 purpose, then tier semantics, then usage, then return shape — all in tight sentences. The return-value sentence ('Returns the tier and every promotion and demotion with its reason') duplicates the output schema and is the one line that does not fully earn 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 one-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, the tier vocabulary, the risk implication of canary/production, and the absence of any mutation path.

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?

The single parameter ladder_path has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents its meaning and default. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so 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 specifies the payload: 'the tier a strategy is on and how it got there.' That is clearly distinct from siblings like show_ledger, read_run_report, or list_runs, which an agent can tell apart without opening any 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 context: 'Use it before acting on a run, to know what the strategy is allowed to do,' plus a clear exclusion that promotion is never available through this surface. It does not name a specific sibling alternative for the promotion action, so it falls short of a 5.

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