Agent tier policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. However, it adds no behavioral detail about the tool itself, such as output format, edge cases, or what 'AML' means; the safety profile is covered, but the policy content is unexplained.

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 description is extremely short and free of filler, but the terseness sacrifices comprehensibility. The key facts are not front-loaded in a recognizable way, and the cryptic phrasing reduces the value of the brevity.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the caller receives or can infer from the policy. Instead, it offers ambiguous fragments and undefined acronyms, leaving an agent to guess the response semantics and the meaning of 'AML'.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is required. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters.

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 never states a verb or object; it reads as cryptic policy fragments ('Tier 0 vs 1+', 'Convert closed at 0'). The name and title imply retrieval of tier policy, but the body does not explicitly say what the tool returns or does. This borders on restating the title without adding a clear operation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The intended use is only implied by the tool name, and the description does not clarify when this policy lookup is appropriate versus the sibling tools.

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