Get tier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's one genuine addition is the scope requirement ("OAuth integrations require tiers:read"), which is useful auth context beyond the annotations, but nothing else behavioral is disclosed.

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?

Three terse fragments, front-loaded with the core action and no padding. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is minimally viable. However, it omits any routing against the tiers siblings (list_tiers, create_tier, update_tier, replace_tier), which is the main gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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%, with publication_id, tier_id, account and expand all documented in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format, constraint, or meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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?

"Get tier" merely restates the tool name and title, and "Reads account data" is generic filler. It never distinguishes retrieving one tier by ID from the sibling list_tiers, so an agent gets no help telling them apart.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative such as list_tiers for enumerating tiers or update_tier/replace_tier for modification. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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