Tenant Information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation profile, only listing the data fetched (capabilities, auth config, websocket URL). It does not add details about permissions or response behavior, but the annotation coverage is sufficient for a read-only call.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with the purpose plus an Args line for the parameter. It is front-loaded, contains no filler or redundancy, and every part adds value.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no nesting), annotations cover safety (read-only, idempotent), and an output schema exists so return format is structurally documented. The description fully captures what the tool does and its parameter, making it complete for this complexity level.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description includes an 'Args' section that explains 'tenant' as a tenant string with default from env. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema and compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, making the parameter's role clear.

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?

Description states 'Get tenant capabilities, auth config, and websocket URL.' This clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (tenant), and specific data returned. It is distinguishable from list_tenants and other get_* tools by focusing on a single tenant's detailed info, but it does not explicitly compare to siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool gets tenant-specific information, with a tenant parameter defaulting from env. No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The absence of any stated context or exclusions brings it to an implied-usage level rather than explicit guidance.

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