List tenants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only behavior is established. The description adds useful context about the multi-tenant scope and the returned fields (company, contact, limits), but it does not describe pagination, limits of the returned set, or other behavioral nuances. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler; the main action and resource are front-loaded, followed by a brief usage cue. Every sentence 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool that mentions its key output fields, the description is complete. There is no output schema, but the description compensates by stating what the listing contains (company, contact, limits), and the annotations cover safety expectations.

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 and the schema covers 100% of them, so there is nothing for the description to add. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 and resource: 'List the tenants (customer organizations) on this multi-tenant PBX', which clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings that list extensions, DIDs, providers, or PBX statistics. It also clarifies the domain-specific term 'tenants' with the parenthetical 'customer organizations'.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to see who the white-label PBX is serving,' giving clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not name sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria, but for a simple zero-parameter list operation this is a minor gap.

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