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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds which attributes each tenant object carries and the plan gating, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume despite limit/cursor parameters.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the entity definition comes first and is the most valuable part. The second sentence on plan availability is only loosely relevant to calling the tool but costs little.

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 an output schema present, return-shape detail is unnecessary, and all parameters are covered by the schema. The only real gap is the absence of any paging or scale hint for a list endpoint.

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% and all three parameters, including the status enum, are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or filtering semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs the verb 'List' with a precise resource and then defines the entity: a tenant is one per customer, containing domains, suppression list, stats, pause switch and daily limit. That is much richer than the title alone, though it never contrasts itself with siblings like get_tenant or create_tenant.

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, no mention of when to prefer get_tenant for a single tenant, and no note about paging through results. The plan-availability sentence ('included on pay as you go and the Dedicated plan') tells the agent about eligibility, not when to select this tool.

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