Tenant Broker Status

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, which covers the core safety profile. The description adds valuable context about what the tool actually does - checking connectivity and join status for multi-tenant deployments - which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but with comprehensive annotations, the bar is lower.

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?

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated immediately.

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 checking tool with comprehensive annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. The lack of output schema means the description doesn't detail return values, but for a simple status check tool, this is acceptable. It could potentially mention what format the status information comes in, but it's reasonably complete.

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 has 0 parameters, so there's no need for parameter documentation. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage rather than parameter details. With 100% schema description coverage (though empty), the baseline would be 3, but for zero-parameter tools, a higher score is warranted.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('get', 'verify', 'check') and resources ('tenant broker status and join information', 'tenant broker connectivity', 'join status for managed sites'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on tenant broker functionality, unlike other ras_site_get_* tools that handle different aspects like AD integration, connection settings, or printing.

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 description explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to verify tenant broker connectivity or check join status for managed sites.' This gives clear scenarios for tool invocation and distinguishes it from other monitoring tools in the sibling list that focus on different infrastructure components.

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