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

The description explicitly states the return format ({ tenant: TenantInfo | null, found: boolean }), which is a key behavioral trait not covered by annotations. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the return value, which goes beyond what annotations state. However, it doesn't detail potential side effects or error conditions, but since it's a read-only operation with good annotation coverage, a 4 is appropriate.

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 two sentences: one states the purpose and return value, the other provides a concrete example. No filler, every sentence earns its place. The key information (what it does, what it returns, how to call it) is front-loaded and concise.

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?

The tool is simple with a single parameter, a clear return type, and strong annotations. The description covers the purpose, return format, and gives an example. There's no output schema, but the description explicitly defines the output shape. For its simplicity, it is complete. It could mention error cases, but those are likely covered by the 'null' return and are not critical for selection.

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%, so the schema already documents the tenant_id parameter. The description adds a concrete example of how to pass the parameter, which reinforces usage. Although the description doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, the example improves clarity, so this exceeds the baseline 3 for full coverage.

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 tool retrieves detailed information about a specific tenant, including metadata, description, and configuration. The verb 'Get' combined with the resource 'tenant information' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like federation_list_tenants (which lists all tenants) and federation_update_tenant (which modifies tenants).

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 implies usage when a single tenant's details are needed, contrasting with listing tools. It provides an example call with arguments, which guides the agent on how to invoke it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., when a list of tenants is needed), though the sibling tool names and the singular focus implicitly handle this.

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