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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a non-destructive read, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds only the upstream endpoint mapping (GET /v1/leases/tenants/{tenantId}), with no mention of not-found behavior, id scoping (tenant vs lease tenant), or return shape.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the API detail. Every clause 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?

Adequate for a simple get-by-id call with full annotation and schema coverage, but with no output schema the description could say what a tenant record contains or how it differs from a lease. Enough to call it correctly, not enough to be complete.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the schema fully documents tenant_id. The description's 'by id' adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it; baseline 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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Fetch one rental tenant by id'), and the word 'one' contrasts with the sibling buildium_list_tenants without naming it explicitly. The sibling set contains a near-identical list tool, so an explicit pointer would have earned a 5, but the singular/plural distinction is inferable.

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: call this when you already have a tenant id and want a single record, rather than the list endpoint. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so it stays at minimum-viable.

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