get_capacity_tier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses the HTTP method (GET, i.e. read-only), the exact endpoint, the required bearer token, and the 403/404 failure modes. It stops short of describing the response shape or any rate/permission nuance beyond NOT_AUTHORIZED.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then cleanly sectioned into ENDPOINT, ERRORS, and AUTHENTICATION blocks that are easy to scan. Slightly boilerplate-heavy for a one-parameter read, but no sentence is wasted.

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 simple single-parameter GET with no output schema or annotations, the description supplies the endpoint, auth scheme, and error behavior, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. The only gap is a description of the returned tier value, which is a minor omission.

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 100% and the single event_id parameter is already documented as required in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the structured field provides, 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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (capacity tier for an event), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the tiered-inventory sibling: 'Capacity tier for GA holds against event capacity (not tiered inventory).' An agent can separate this from get_inventory_tier without opening either schema.

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 parenthetical scoping note tells the agent this applies to GA capacity rather than tiered inventory, which implicitly routes it away from get_inventory_tier. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer one over the other or any prerequisite conditions beyond the auth requirement.

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