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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not meet it. 'Get' implies a read, but there is nothing about the required JWT/authorization context, whether results are scoped to the token's tenant, rate limits, or what the response shape looks like.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, and the key noun (tenant) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness pushes the missing information into the other dimensions rather than making the sentence itself wasteful.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description minimally covers what is returned. It leaves unresolved how this differs from actora_tenant_plans and actora_tenant_usage and says nothing about authorization behavior, which is the main gap for an agent that must choose correctly.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Gateway JWT token'), so the schema already explains it. The description adds no meaning about the token's scope or how tenant resolution works, which is the baseline expectation when the schema is complete.

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 ('Get') and resource ('tenant') plus the data returned (profile, plan, quota), so an agent knows it is a read of tenant metadata. It does not distinguish itself from the overlapping siblings actora_tenant_plans and actora_tenant_usage, which appear to cover part of the same ground.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. Given two siblings named for tenant plans and tenant usage, an agent has to guess whether this tool supersedes them or complements them; the description offers no routing signal.

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