cyberqp_get_tenant_jit_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, and it adds a meaningful guarantee: the response never contains a password or OTP code. It also discloses the kinds of status data returned. It does not discuss permissions or error behavior, but for a read-oriented status tool the key output-safety constraint is clearly stated.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource, scope, and return contents, while the second adds a concise and important safety caveat about passwords and OTP codes.

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 optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the key information an agent needs: what status data is returned, the tenant-wide scope, and what will never be returned. It is slightly light on exact response shape and pagination behavior, but the complete parameter schema and low complexity prevent a major gap.

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?

All three parameters (page, limit, searchText) are already fully described in the input schema, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is appropriate given the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('JIT account status'), and the scope ('across the entire tenant'), while also listing the returned dimensions: existence, enabled/disabled state, and metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from the customer-scoped sibling cyberqp_get_customer_jit_status.

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 'across the entire tenant' implies this is the tenant-wide tool, and the reader can infer the difference from cyberqp_get_customer_jit_status. However, the description never explicitly names alternatives or states when to prefer this over a simpler existence check such as cyberqp_check_jit_account_exists.

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