list_tool_tiers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. Its use of 'List' and the planning framing make clear this is a non-mutating read operation that precedes reservation, adding useful contextual behavior beyond the tool name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence. It leads with the action and resource, then gives the purpose. Every clause contributes meaning, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the tool does and when to call it. The only minor gap is not defining 'tier', but that is unlikely to block correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates the tool returns all tools with their tiers and adds no unnecessary parameter expectations.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List every tool with its tier'. It also explains the intended purpose ('plan before it reserves'), which separates this meta-listing tool from the action-oriented siblings like reserve_chassis or route_signal.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: before making a reservation, as a planning step. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough given the sibling tool set.

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