list_tenants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: no permission restrictions, tenant_logo is omitted by default and replaced with has_logo(bool), and image retrieval is impossible. This meaningfully informs an agent about response size and data constraints.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the core purpose, then gives workflow guidance, permission level, and important response-thinning behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or filler.

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 low-complexity tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: purpose, first-use workflow, permission level, and a notable response-field omission. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly listing the returned fields, but the mention of tenant_id and has_logo gives enough guidance for correct invocation.

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%, so the parameters page and per_page are already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'テナント一覧を取得します' (retrieves the list of tenants). It also differentiates the tool from siblings by positioning it as the necessary first step for obtaining tenant_id, which most other tools require, making its role distinct.

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 provides clear usage context: 'SaaS_A の調査はまずこのツールで tenant_id を取得することから始めてください' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the workflow guidance is strong enough for selection.

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