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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing that invitation codes are redacted from the response and that linked tenancy data is included. Those are meaningful data-shaping details an agent would not otherwise know.

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?

Two short clauses with zero filler, and the payload contents are front-loaded ahead of the endpoint reference. The telegraphic phrasing is slightly clipped but costs nothing in comprehension.

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?

With no output schema, the description needs to sketch the return payload, and it does — contact details, linked tenancy, invitation codes stripped. Nothing else is required for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including the 'from the corresponding list tool' provenance note. The description adds nothing beyond the path template, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource (tenant contact details plus linked tenancy) retrieved by id, and the endpoint 'GET /v2/tenants/{id}' pins down the operation. It does not explicitly name arthur_list_tenants as the counterpart, so the single-vs-list distinction is only implied by the path parameter.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the single-record fetch when an id is known, and the schema note 'from the corresponding list tool' hints at the list-then-get flow. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so the guidance is minimal.

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