get_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 implies a read-only listing and names the returned fields (ticket médio, volume), but says nothing about whether the set is fixed, ordering, permissions, or response shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource is stated before the returned attributes. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than tightened conciseness.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the enumerable tiers and the metrics returned. It leaves gaps around whether all tiers are always returned, ordering, and any auth/context requirements.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter syntax for the description to explain. The stated fields describe output rather than input, which is harmless but adds nothing parameter-wise.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Lista") and a concrete resource (business profiles: MEI, pequeno, médio, grande) plus the fields returned. An agent can tell it apart from get_brands by the resource alone, though no sibling is named 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_brands, calculate_cost, or compare_brands, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage must be inferred purely from the resource name.

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