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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and open-world hints. The description adds that include embeds related records and notes the HTTP GET endpoint, but does not disclose error behavior or rate limits. Some added value beyond annotations, but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The trailing 'GET /tenants/{id}' is implementation detail that doesn't aid an agent, but overall compact.

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 read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly. It states it returns one tenant with optional includes. Minor gap: no mention of what fields a tenant has, but that's acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description merely restates that include controls related records, adding little beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is 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 (get) and resource (tenant by UUID) and implicitly distinguishes from list tools, but does not name sibling get tools like street_get_person. An agent can still identify it as the single-tenant fetch.

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?

The phrase 'by UUID' implies use when you have an identifier, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives when you don't, such as street_list_tenants to find a UUID. No when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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