get_tenant_settings

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does well by stating the tool returns specific fields and a readiness status, and by disclosing the downstream gating behavior (412 refusal). It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or 'no side effects', but 'Returns' strongly implies it.

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 one dense sentence that conveys the resource, the specific fields, the additional status output, and the behavioral consequence of the gate. No filler or redundant wording; it earns its place.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job telling the agent what the tool returns and why it matters. It misses an explicit differentiation from the sibling get_compliance_status, but the field-level detail and gate explanation make the tool's purpose sufficiently complete.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Based on the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parametric semantics, but none are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resource ('workspace identity/compliance fields') plus its output ('readiness status line'). It clearly distinguishes itself from generic getters by specifying the field names and the outbound gating behavior.

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 implies strong usage context: check these settings before sending outbound, as send tools refuse 412 until all three fields are set. It does not explicitly exclude or name alternatives like get_compliance_status, but it provides clear context for when the tool's output is needed.

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