auth_list_tenants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; "List" implies a non-destructive read, and it usefully discloses that user counts and sign-in settings come back. It does not state what happens when no tenants exist, whether the emulator must be started, or how truncation by limit is signaled, leaving real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned fields appended rather than buried. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the shape of the result. Minor omissions remain around emulator preconditions and pagination semantics, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema (substring matching on id/display name, maximum 500 with default 500). The description adds no syntax or behavioral detail about q or limit, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the Auth emulator's tenants") plus the fields returned (user counts, sign-in settings), which clearly separates it from the user-oriented siblings like auth_list_users and auth_get_user. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, but the resource distinction is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus auth_list_users, nor any prerequisite such as the Auth emulator needing to be running. The agent must infer the emulator context and the multi-tenancy scope from the parenthetical alone.

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