Check Tier Permits Action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuinely useful return semantics beyond them: 'Returns null if permitted, or escalation details if tier is insufficient.' This is valuable given there is no output schema, though it stops short of describing what the escalation details contain or any failure modes.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded and the return behavior follows immediately, both earning their 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 read-only check tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential outcome (null vs. escalation details). It is largely complete, though the shape of the 'escalation details' return remains unspecified.

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%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters and the baseline is 3. The description references autonomy level and spend amount, mapping loosely to requestedAutonomy and requestedSpend, but adds no format or range detail beyond the schema.

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 verb (Check) and resource (agent's earned tier permitting an action), qualified by autonomy level and spend amount. This distinguishes it functionally from sibling checks like check_purpose_permitted or check_usage_permitted, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose ('at a given autonomy level and spend amount') but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as aps_check_escalation_required or the other check_* tools.

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