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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false); the description adds a real behavioral fact those do not encode — the owner user is created and invited as a side effect of this call. It does not say what happens on a duplicate/invalid owner email or what is returned, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact argument list and two follow-up pointers; all sentences carry information. It is slightly list-heavy, but nothing is wasted.

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 non-idempotent creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the required owner, the side effect of owner creation, and the next-step tooling. It stops short of describing what the call returns or how duplicate tenants are handled.

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 baseline is 3. The description does add genuine meaning for 'plan' (it is the KEY compared by feature-flag rules, not the display name) and for locale, but it omits the 'app' parameter entirely, so the net gain over the schema is modest.

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 and resource ('Create a new tenant') and immediately disambiguates the term as 'workspace/customer account' in the Bridge app, which separates it from create_app, create_user, and create_plan in the sibling list.

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?

Gives concrete forward guidance: 'Use invite_user to add more users to the tenant afterwards' and 'Before writing app code that consumes this, call get_integration_guide with topic=team'. It lacks any explicit when-not-to-use or sibling-selection condition (e.g. create_test_user vs. this), so it stops short of a 5.

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