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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by explaining that include embeds related records into the response's "included" collection, which tells the agent the call can fan out into a compound document. It does not cover error behavior for unknown UUIDs, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the endpoint. Nothing is redundant and no sentence fails to earn 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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at the shape of the return, and it does by naming the "included" collection for related records. Combined with a fully documented two-parameter schema and read-only annotations, this is close to complete, though a note on what happens with a missing or malformed UUID would close the last gap.

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%, with the include enum fully enumerated in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description restates that include selects related records but adds no depth on nesting semantics (e.g., property.owner), request cost, or default behavior when include is omitted.

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 (fetch one tenancy by UUID) plus the endpoint GET /tenancies/{id}. It implies the list counterpart via the schema reference to street_list_tenancies but never explicitly contrasts itself with street_get_tenant or street_list_tenancies, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 only implied: the tenancy_id parameter description points to street_list_tenancies as the source of IDs, which sketches a workflow. There is no statement of when to use this versus street_list_tenancies or street_get_tenant, and no guidance on when include is worth requesting.

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