list_membership_tiers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API endpoint (GET /v1/membership_tiers) and the return structure, indicating a read-only operation. It adds value beyond the schema by providing the API path and response fields.

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 highly concise and well-structured with separate sections for purpose, API, and return structure. Every sentence adds value, and there is no 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description provides detailed information about the return structure (dict with total and tiers array with fields). It fully covers what the tool does, how it is called, and what the response looks like, making it complete for a list tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that.

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 retrieves all membership tier definitions for the store, with a specific verb and resource. The purpose section explains its use for analysis and confirmation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_member_point_rules, though the name itself is distinct.

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 '用途' section provides clear context for usage: analyzing member structure or confirming tier settings. It does not specify when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is sufficient for the simple read operation.

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