Get Tier Status

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds concrete behavioral details about what is reported (vault count, storage usage, percentages against Free tier limits), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 very concise: a two-sentence opening that states the core purpose, followed by a brief usage note. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations. The description fully covers what the tool does, what it reports, and when it is useful. There are no significant gaps given the tool's simplicity and the presence of the output schema.

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 schema has only one parameter, response_format, with an enum (markdown/json) and a default value, making it self-explanatory. The description does not explain this parameter, but the schema fully covers its semantics. Given low schema description coverage (0%), a baseline of 3 is appropriate because the parameter is inherently clear.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current tier and usage vs. limits'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like vault_set_tier (which sets a tier) and get_license_tier (which likely retrieves license details) by focusing on usage vs. limits.

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 clear usage context: 'Useful before hitting a limit to know how close you are, or to confirm Pro tier is active after upgrading.' It explains when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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