tier_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read operation via 'Check', but does not explicitly state that it is safe or idempotent. It mentions auth requirements, which is good, but lacks full behavioral context such as side-effect absence.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with purpose and includes key details. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (tier name, status, expiry, usage, caps) and notes conditions ('when returned'). The auth requirement is also mentioned. This provides complete context for a parameterless read 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?

There are zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information (none needed), but usefully describes the output, which indirectly adds meaning 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 clearly specifies the verb 'Check' and the resource 'current tier subscription', listing the returned information (name, status, expiry, usage, caps). It distinguishes from siblings like 'tier_checkout' which is for purchasing/changing tiers.

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 states a prerequisite ('Requires allowance auth'), but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or specify when not to use. The context of a read-only check is implied but not formally contrasted.

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