Tenant Broker Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context (the tenant broker enables multi-tenant deployments, the tool reports join status), but reveals nothing about response format, pagination, or failure modes. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and purpose, with the usage instruction following immediately. No filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential context: what the broker is and what status/join data is retrieved. It could go slightly further on what the returned status conveys, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level confusion is possible.

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 resource (tenant broker) and the operations it supports (status and join information), which is clearly distinct from the other ras_site_get_* siblings that cover AD integration, load balancing, MFA, etc. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to verify tenant broker connectivity or check join status for managed sites,' giving a clear operational context for invocation. It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative tool, but the usage context is well defined.

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