research

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description genuinely adds interpretive context the annotations cannot: READY is about the bill, a locked tier surfaces the phase that opens it, and MAM 'LOCKS' rows gate capabilities rather than recipes. It does not cover result ordering or pagination behavior behind limit/offset.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the whole thing is short, but the layout is ragged: sentences break mid-clause, 'what is left, what it costs, what spendable stock affords now' compresses three ideas without punctuation, and the trailing '`tier=` is HUB only' dangles as a stray fragment.

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 9-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is only partially sufficient. It does explain how to read the results (READY, LOCKS, phase_requirements), which is valuable, but leaves five parameters undefined and gives no guidance on combining `tree`, `show`, and `tier`, which is the main misuse risk here.

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 coverage is 56%, so about half the parameters carry their own docs. The description only reinforces `tier=` as HUB-only, which the schema already states word for word, and only implicitly maps 'HUB milestones or MAM research' to `tree`. It never touches `save`, `world`, `query`, `limit`, or `offset`, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clause names both resources (HUB milestones, MAM research) and the three things it answers: what is left, what it costs, what stock affords now. An agent can tell this is a read/progress-and-cost lookup. It never contrasts itself with close siblings like phase_requirements, bom, or rank_unlocks, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states one real routing constraint, '`tier=` is HUB only', and explains the pending/READY distinction via `show`/READY semantics. There is no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of `tree=mam` vs. hub selection, and no pointer to the sibling that answers the overlapping questions (phase_requirements, rank_unlocks).

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