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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the resolution order for 'name' and two concrete failure modes (TENANT_NOT_FOUND, TENANT_AMBIGUOUS) — genuinely useful behavior that annotations cannot convey. It doesn't mention auth scope, so not a 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the lookup key and its fallback front-loaded before the return contents and error conditions. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (plan, locale, logo, mfa, payment status, trial, onboarded, owner, metadata) plus the two error outcomes. For a two-parameter read tool with rich annotations, nothing material is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description's extra detail is the precise fallback rule (id only used when the name matches nothing), which sharpens but largely restates the schema's own note; 'app' is not discussed in the description at all.

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 ('Get one tenant') and pins down the lookup key (NAME, with id as fallback), which immediately distinguishes it from the sibling list_tenants and update_tenant. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

Tells the agent where the required identifier comes from ('as shown by list_tenants') and gives an explicit fallback condition (id accepted when the name matches nothing). It stops short of stating when to prefer this over list_tenants or other single-record getters, so it's clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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