check_my_tier

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It details exactly what the tool does: 'Walks the live tier-resolution chain on the user's machine' and lists the sources checked (env var, license file, OAuth session, cached entitlement, free-tier fallback). It also discloses that it is free-tier safe and does not require a license, which is critical behavioral information. No contradictions.

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 well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a bulleted list of example user queries, then a detailed explanation of the resolution chain and output fields, and finally common interpretation cases. While it is lengthy, every section adds value for an agent needing to interpret results. It is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 that there is no output schema, the description fully describes the return value structure (dict with effective_tier, resolution_chain, matched_source, agent_summary, tier_rank, pricing_url) and explains common interpretations. The tool has zero parameters and a straightforward purpose, and the description leaves no gaps in understanding what the tool returns and how to use the response.

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 reiterates 'No arguments.' Without parameters, there is little to add. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the description confirms the absence of parameters, which is consistent with 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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Check the user's current Kiln subscription tier and explain WHY they're on it.' It explicitly enumerates the tiers (Free/Pro/Business/Enterprise) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'license_status' or 'upgrade_kiln' by focusing on explaining the reason behind the tier. The many example queries further reinforce the purpose.

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 description provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Use this whenever the user asks any tier / plan / subscription / paywall / access question' with a comprehensive list of example queries. It also states 'No arguments. Free-tier safe — does NOT require a license to call. Available to every user.' and includes common interpretation scenarios. This clearly tells the agent when to use the tool and that it has no prerequisites.

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