milestones

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers a genuinely useful disclosure: READY reflects the bill, not access, and the access gate is not present in shipped data. That caveat prevents a real misinterpretation, though return format and pagination remain unstated.

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 first line is well front-loaded, but the remaining prose is analogy-heavy and cryptic ('SchematicLadder', 'spendable stock', 'in the same words'), which costs the agent effort without proportional payoff.

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 10-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description explains the concept and the key caveat but leaves the parameter set and result shape largely to the schema. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 70%, so the schema already documents most parameters (show, tier, as_of, limit, query, retired params). The description hints at the show=affordable semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening line states the resource (HUB milestones) and the three things it returns: what's left, what each costs, and what you can afford now. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly framing itself as the same questions `mam_research` answers, applied to the other ladder. The purpose is clear despite the dense jargon.

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?

It implicitly routes the agent by noting that `phase_requirements` is where the elevator gate stands and that `mam_research` covers the parallel ladder, but it never states an explicit 'use this when' condition. Usage must be inferred from the analogies rather than being spelled out.

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