inforcer_tenants_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description repeats, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: accepted identifier forms, normalization to numeric Client Tenant ID, and an error on ambiguous names. This gives the agent useful expectations about resolution and failure behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence contributes useful information. The only minor redundancy is the 'Read-only' phrase, which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 single-parameter read-only get operation, the description covers accepted inputs, normalization, and ambiguity errors, which is sufficient for correct invocation. It does not describe the return payload, but the absence of an output schema is less critical for a simple single-tenant fetch.

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%, and the description's identifier explanation essentially mirrors the schema's parameter description. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 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?

The opening sentence 'Get a single tenant' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this retrieval operation from sibling tools like inforcer_tenants_list and inforcer_tenants_resolve. The scope is unambiguous—one tenant, not a collection.

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 identifier formats imply this is the tool for fetching a tenant by any accepted identifier, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose it over inforcer_tenants_list or inforcer_tenants_resolve. Usage is implied rather than spelled out, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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