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

Annotations already establish a safe read (readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: pagination mechanics ('Pass next_cursor back as cursor'), an auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access), and the default current-tenant scoping. It doesn't disclose result size limits or rate behavior.

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?

Content is front-loaded and mostly efficient, but it opens with two near-duplicate sentences — 'Tenants with property, unit, status, contact details and current balance' vs. 'Returns tenants with property, unit, status, email, phone and current balance' — wasting space on the same field list.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating the fields returned. Pagination, default filtering, and auth requirements are covered; only minor gaps like ordering or result caps remain, so it is adequate for a 5-param list tool.

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 all five parameters and the baseline is 3. The description restates min_balance semantics and cursor chaining ('Pass next_cursor back as cursor'), which mostly overlaps the schema's own 'Next page cursor from the previous call.'

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 definition uses a clear verb+resource ('Tenants'/'list tenants') and enumerates returned fields (property, unit, status, contact details, balance), so the agent knows it retrieves a collection of tenants. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like rent-manager_get_tenant or rent-manager_get_tenant_ledger, but the plural 'list' framing makes its role distinguishable.

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?

'Current tenants only by default; set status to widen it' gives useful context on default filtering behavior and how to broaden results. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives (single-tenant getters, ledger, etc.), so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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