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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the critical name-vs-id addressing rule and the exact fields returned, which matters since no output schema exists. It omits pagination/limit behavior, 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return fields, then usage routing. The field enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema. Structure is clean with no wasted sentences.

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?

Given no output schema, the field list usefully substitutes for return documentation, and annotations cover safety. The only small gap is absence of pagination/volume behavior for a 'list every tenant' call. Otherwise complete for a simple list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single 'app' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail of its own, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the 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+resource+scope: 'List every tenant (workspace/customer account) in the Bridge app.' It even clarifies the domain term 'tenant', and clearly distinguishes itself from get_tenant/list_users by contrast.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: to discover tenant names before calling get_tenant/update_tenant/delete_tenant because those address tenants by NAME, not id. It also routes to the sibling list_users for users within a tenant. Nothing is left to inference.

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