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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the workspace-wide scope, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination behavior (i.e., that results may be paginated despite saying 'all tenants'). This is a minor gap, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler. It immediately states the action, resource, and scope.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential use case. It could mention pagination explicitly, but that is partially implied by the limit/cursor parameters and does not create a significant gap.

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%; both limit and cursor are described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning or guidance about pagination parameters, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('tenants'), and a scope qualifier ('all... in the workspace'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tenant, list_tenant_users, and list_user_tenants without needing to open 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?

The scope 'in the workspace' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need a broad, workspace-wide tenant listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_tenant or list_user_tenants, nor state when not to use them, so it stops short of a 5.

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