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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile, and the description adds membership semantics. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior despite limit and cursor parameters, nor does it describe the full result set expectations.

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, clear sentence with no redundant wording. The core operation and scope are front-loaded, making the description easy to parse.

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 low-complexity read-only listing tool with fully documented parameters, the description is largely sufficient. The only notable gap is whether 'all' is literal or effectively paginated across all results, given the presence of limit and cursor.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the user association implied by the tool name and purpose.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('tenants'), and scope ('a user belongs to'), making the purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_tenants and list_tenant_users by emphasizing the user-centric relationship.

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 implies usage: call it to find tenants for a given user. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_tenants or list_tenant_users, nor does it provide any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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