daykeeper_tenants_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful security caveat beyond the annotations: returned identifiers must not be treated as authorization.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every sentence contributes either the core purpose or a critical behavioral warning, with no filler.

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 list tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and adds a notable authorization caveat. No additional return-value or parameter detail is needed because the structured fields handle those areas.

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 parameter semantics are not applicable. Per the rubric, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4 when there is no additional parameter meaning to add.

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 precise verb ('List') and resource ('tenants') with an explicit scope constraint ('visible to this credential'). The plural list operation is clearly distinguishable from the sibling daykeeper_tenants_get, which retrieves a single tenant.

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 'visible to this credential' implies the context for using the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it versus siblings like daykeeper_tenants_get or daykeeper_capabilities. Usage is inferable but not documented.

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