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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds genuine context beyond that by naming the backing source ('Estuary control-plane table tenants') and the underlying PostgREST call (GET /tenants), which helps an agent reason about freshness and scope.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and return contents following. Dense but free of filler; the trailing PostgREST note is the only slightly extraneous element.

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, single-parameter read with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the fields returned and naming the data source. It is essentially complete, with only the limit behavior left to the schema.

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?

The single parameter (limit) has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description contributes no syntax, default, or semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('Get the user's tenant(s)') and then enumerates what a tenant record contains (quotas, billing tiers, recurring charge, trial start, payment provider), which is far more informative than the bare title. No sibling tool touches tenants, so no differentiation is needed.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Usage is only implied by the fact that this is the sole tenant-reading tool among the siblings.

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