Trust Tiers

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

Annotations provide no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'View' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, and the return statement discloses that the result is a dict of tier definitions and fee rates. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or side effects, but for a zero-parameter read-only lookup that is a minor gap.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, and the tier list adds useful context. The 'Returns' line is slightly redundant with the first sentence, but it is brief and clarifies the response shape rather than adding fluff.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain input or return details in depth. It gives the tier names and states that the result contains definitions and fee rates, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 no parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific commentary, which is appropriate. Baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 states a specific action ('View') and resource ('trust tier definitions and fee rates') and lists the exact tier names. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from the other civitae_* sibling tools, none of which obviously cover trust tier definitions or fee rates.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when it should not be used. The description implies it is a reference lookup, but it never explicitly ties the tool to a use case or contrasts it with sibling tools.

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