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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnlyHint and non-destructive. The description adds a useful behavioral caveat: both include_drafts and include_scraped_images can be large, implying potential payload/performance cost. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two efficient sentences. The first front-loads the returned profile fields; the second gives a crisp, actionable warning about the optional large includes. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

With no output schema, the description's field list substitutes for return-value documentation fairly well. It covers the main data categories and flags the cost of optional includes. It stops short of describing exact response shape or edge cases, but the schema fully documents the required context parameter.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds decision-relevant meaning by explicitly warning that the two boolean include parameters can return large data, helping agents avoid expensive calls unnecessarily.

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 says 'Fetch a tenant's profile' and enumerates the exact contents: brand DNA, active flow + config, Instagram connection state, automation settings, and timezone. This distinguishes it from narrow siblings like get_brand_dna or get_flow by scope, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives is provided. The agent must infer that get_tenant is the umbrella profile fetch because siblings like get_brand_dna and get_flow exist. The only direct usage guidance is the warning to use include_drafts/include_scraped_images sparingly.

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