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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: invitation codes are removed from the data, it is a GET endpoint, and pagination returns only one page. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the key data-shaping and pagination traits are disclosed.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the resource, then the endpoint, then the important pagination caveat.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the returned data, the removed invitation codes, and the page-level behavior. It is not fully complete regarding all ten filter parameters, but the core calling context is present.

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 70%, so the schema carries most parameter documentation, including page, limit, sort, direction, and several ID filters. The description adds only general pagination context ('one page, not the whole portfolio') and does not clarify the undocumented email, mobile, or full_address filter semantics.

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 resource and operation: tenant contact details with linked tenancy via GET /v2/tenants. It clearly distinguishes a list/collection endpoint from a single-tenant fetch, though it does not explicitly name the sibling get_tenant tool as the alternative.

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 by the description of what the endpoint returns and by the warning that it returns one page rather than the whole portfolio. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of arthur_get_tenant or arthur_list_tenancies.

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