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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds information the annotations do not: the required `full_access` API key scope and the underlying endpoint. It omits error behavior (e.g., unknown ref) but that is a minor gap for a simple read.

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 short sentences: purpose first, then the auth and endpoint facts. Every clause carries usable information and nothing is padded.

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?

For a one-parameter read with full schema coverage and a complete annotation set, the definition covers purpose, auth, and endpoint. It lacks only failure-mode behavior (what happens when the ref doesn't resolve), which is a modest omission rather than a blocking one.

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 the `ref` schema already documents "The tenant id or your own `external_id`". The description adds nothing about ref format or resolution order, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the explanatory work.

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?

States a specific verb plus resource ("Retrieve a tenant") and includes the exact endpoint and operationId, making the single-resource read unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with list_tenants or get_audience, but the singular resource name carries most of that differentiation.

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 gives a hard prerequisite ("Requires a `full_access` API key"), which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over list_tenants or how it relates to update_tenant/delete_tenant, so the when-to-use reasoning is only implied by the tool name.

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