check_tier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return behavior ('Returns null if permitted, or escalation details if tier is insufficient') but does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, or error behavior. This is more transparent than a bare mutation description but still leaves key behaviors unstated.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and quickly states the output. No filler or redundant phrases.

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?

The tool has six parameters and no output schema. The description explains the core logic and return value abstractly ('null if permitted, or escalation details'). It does not clarify how tier levels map to autonomy/spend or what escalation details contain, but for a focused check tool it is reasonably complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having its own description. The tool description reinforces the role of requestedAutonomy and requestedSpend but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description states the specific verb+resource: 'Check if an agent's earned tier permits an action at a given autonomy level and spend amount.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling permission-check tools by naming the tier-checking purpose and the two key inputs.

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 intended use is clear from the description (checking tier permissions), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative checks like check_purpose_permitted or check_usage_permitted. Exclusion criteria are not stated.

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