List Tenant Credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by flagging that this is an ADMIN operation and that the upstream API key is never exposed (masking behavior). It stops short of stating failure modes or whether an empty result is returned when no credentials exist.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the ADMIN/masking caveats, followed by tight Args and Returns blocks. The tenant_id arg line duplicates the schema verbatim and is the only wasted element; the return-field list earns its place since no output schema exists.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the return field list (instance_id, api_key_prefix, receiver_id, is_active), which the structured data does not provide. Missing only edge-case behavior for tenants without credentials.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries its meaning. The description's "tenant_id (string): the tenant id" is a restatement rather than added semantics (no format, prefix, or lookup hint). 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?

States a specific verb and resource — list the masked upstream credential metadata for a tenant — which is clearly distinct from the write-side siblings (rotate_tenant_credentials, delete_tenant_credentials). It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so the differentiation is inferable rather than spelled out.

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?

"ADMIN operation" signals the required privilege level and implies usage context, but the description never says when to reach for this instead of rotate_tenant_credentials or delete_tenant_credentials, nor what to do if the tenant has no credentials. Usage is implied, not guided.

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