Get Security Tier

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context by explaining the meaning of the three tiers and the return fields. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description enriches the agent's understanding beyond the structured metadata.

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 concise and well-organized: starts with the core purpose, then lists tiers in a clear hierarchy, and finishes with the return object structure. Each sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential details: tier semantics and return fields. The 'recommendation' field lacks elaboration, but overall the description is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description appropriately omits parameter details, and the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies here.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the current wallet security tier.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ordnet_wallet_status by focusing on security tier specifically and even lists the tier hierarchy for clarity.

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 description implies use for checking the wallet's security tier but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as ordnet_wallet_status. It offers no exclusions or context about when to prefer this tool, making the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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