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

The description adds some context beyond annotations, such as the return format and that it returns all tenants (no filtering). However, it does not disclose potential pagination, response size limits, or any rate limits. Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, so the bar is lower, and the description adds useful return details.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the return type example is slightly repetitive and could be trimmed. Still, every sentence serves a purpose and it is not verbose.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero params, no required inputs), the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It includes return structure and an example. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the in-description return format. Slight deduction for not explaining possible status values or edge cases.

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?

Despite zero parameters, the description clarifies that no arguments are needed and includes an example with empty arguments, which adds value over the empty schema. With no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists all tenants in a federation and specifies the returned data (tenant IDs, names, and status). It distinguishes from siblings like federation_tenant_info and federation_list_agents by explicitly focusing on tenant discovery.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool to discover which tenants it can interact with, providing a clear use case. It differentiates from related tools by focusing on tenant enumeration, though it doesn't name alternatives. The example invocation reinforces when to use it.

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