avanan_list_tenants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only list operation and describes the output fields, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or how scrollId from a previous response should be used beyond what the schema states.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action and scope, and the second lists the returned entry fields. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 low-complexity list tool with one optional pagination parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains scope and enumerates response fields. It could optionally mention that results are paginated or that more pages can be retrieved using scrollId, but the schema already covers the parameter.

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% for the single optional scrollId parameter, and the schema already explains it as a 'Pagination scroll ID from a previous response.' The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score 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 all customer tenants associated with the current MSP.' It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like avanan_get_tenant (single tenant), avanan_list_msp_partners (partners), and avanan_list_msp_users (users).

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 'List all customer tenants' provides clear context for when to use this tool: enumerating tenants under the current MSP. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as avanan_get_tenant for single-tenant lookups, but the 'all' wording makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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