avanan_list_tenants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description states what each entry includes, but it does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, nor does it mention pagination behavior (though scrollId is in the schema). The missing explicit safety and pagination context prevents a higher score.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, then lists the included fields. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or 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 simple list operation with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what the response contains. It omits an explicit note on pagination flow or the optionality of MSPId, but those are documented in the schema. Overall, it is nearly complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 schema fully documents both parameters (MSPId and scrollId), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no detail about parameter usage, such as that MSPId is optional and only for parent MSPs, or how scrollId relates to pagination. Since schema coverage is 100%, a 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear action ('List') and resource ('all customer tenants') with an explicit scope ('associated with the current MSP'). It also enumerates the fields returned, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like get_tenant (singular) and list_msp_partners (different resource).

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 makes the primary use case obvious: retrieving all tenants for the current MSP. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., when to use get_tenant for a specific tenant) or any negative conditions. The context of a list operation is clear enough for an agent to infer, but the lack of explicit routing guidance keeps it from a 5.

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