Agent tier policy

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds some behavioral context by summarizing the policy rules, which helps an agent understand what kind of information to expect, but it does not explain the actual behavior of the tool call or its output format.

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 admirably short with no filler, and the first phrase 'Tier 0 vs 1+' does lead with the core distinction. However, the remaining fragments are cryptic and lack expansion, so the brevity comes at the cost of comprehensibility for an agent without domain knowledge.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of meaning. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently know what this policy applies to, what 'convert' and 'withdraw' signify, what 'AML' means, or what the returned policy content looks like.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4; the description adds no parameter information but none 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 name and title make clear the resource is an agent tier policy, and the description does supply policy content ('Tier 0 vs 1+', convert/withdraw rules). However, the description never states what the tool does in terms of retrieving or explaining policy, and jargon like 'AML' and 'convert' is left undefined, making the purpose only vaguely inferable.

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 on when to use this tool versus any alternative. The sibling tools appear unrelated, but the description does not say 'use this when you need tier policy details' nor does it provide exclusions or comparisons. Usage context is entirely implied by the tool name.

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