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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — the required `full_access` API key and the underlying `GET /tenants` operation — which an agent needs before calling and cannot get from the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the auth and endpoint facts come before anything else. The opening sentence "List tenants." merely restates the tool name and title, so it is not perfectly waste-free, but sizing is appropriate for a simple list tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could have explained what a tenant record contains or what the response envelope looks like, and it does not. It says nothing about pagination defaults or result cap either, though the schema covers those. Adequate to invoke correctly, but thin on what comes back.

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%, with `after`, `before` and `limit` each documented including the mutual exclusion of after/before, so the schema carries the parameter burden fully. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List tenants"), making the operation unambiguous against mutation siblings like create_tenant or delete_tenant. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from get_tenant or from the many other list_* tools, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is the enumeration form of the tenant resource, with get_tenant presumably for a single record. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to alternatives is given. The prerequisite (`full_access` API key) is stated, which is useful but is a gate, not selection guidance.

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