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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that safety profile. The description adds useful domain context about tenants but does not disclose additional operational behavior such as pagination, ordering, or response shape. With a read-only list tool, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 two purposeful sentences with no filler. The first states the action and defines the resource, and the second gives the use case and downstream relationship to get_tenant. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with pagination parameters already documented in the schema, the description covers the core purpose and key output concept (tenant IDs). It could more explicitly describe the response type since there is no output schema, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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% for both optional parameters, including a detailed explanation of the opaque cursor token. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already carries the full burden, so the baseline score of 3 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the workspace's tenants'), then defines what a tenant is and states the exact question it answers ('what tenants do I have'). It also links directly to get_tenant by saying it provides the tenant IDs that tool needs, which helps differentiate it from tenant-scoped list tools.

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?

It gives clear situational guidance: use it to discover tenants and obtain tenant IDs for get_tenant. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_tenant_users or list_user_tenants, so it stops short of fully excluding sibling tools.

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