ghost_list_tiers

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The description implies a read-only operation ('List') and gives insight into the contents of the response (Free, Paid, pricing, Benefits), but does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. For a simple list operation this is adequate, but not fully transparent.

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, well-formed sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by clarifying examples. There is no waste or redundancy, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently tells the agent what the tool does and what kind of data is included. It could mention the response format or any limitations (e.g., pagination), but the absence is not a significant gap for a simple list tool. The provided details about tiers are helpful context.

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 avoids unnecessary parameter details and the schema confirms no parameters exist. There is nothing else needed here.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all membership and subscription tiers', and further clarifies the content with examples (Free, Paid, Monthly/Yearly pricing, Benefits). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which deal with tiers. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context that this tool lists tiers, but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. Since there are no sibling tools for tiers, the context is sufficient and no alternative exists to differentiate, but the lack of an explicit 'when to use' statement prevents a 5.

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