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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing sort order ("Newest first as Street orders them") and the backing endpoint. It says nothing about pagination metadata, rate limits, or how large result sets behave, which for an open-world list call would be useful.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then ordering/pagination, then the endpoint. No filler. It is arguably too terse for a 12-parameter tool, but nothing written is wasted.

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 12 optional filters and no output schema, the description should ideally say what a tenant record looks like and how the 'included' side-loads appear in the response. It covers ordering and paging but leaves the return shape and the tenant/people distinction unaddressed; the rich schema compensates for the filter side but not the response side.

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%, so all 12 parameters (including the include embedding, trashed semantics, and date-range filters) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes page and page_size, adding nothing the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 ("List tenants") and reveals the underlying endpoint (GET /tenants), which makes the operation unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from close siblings such as street_list_people or street_get_tenant, so an agent must infer the tenant-vs-person-vs-tenancy boundary on its own.

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 sentence about page/page_size is parameter guidance, not when-to-use guidance. There is no statement about when to pick this over street_list_people or street_get_tenant, and no mention of when the richer filters (email_address, person_status, trashed) are appropriate. Only ordering and pagination context is given.

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