get_active_tenant

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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive, so the safety bar is met. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: all write tools default to this tenant, and the examineeSignupDisabled flag has operational consequences for login-gated quizzes. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the tenant-default behavior and then the flag explanation. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the practical troubleshooting tip is phrased efficiently.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the remaining burden is explaining what the output means and when to care. The description does that thoroughly, including the exact login scenarios affected by examineeSignupDisabled.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify, and the schema already confirms an empty input. No deduction is warranted.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Return the team (tenant) this token is currently operating against.' It also names the secondary returned signal, examineeSignupDisabled. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast a sibling like switch_active_tenant, so it doesn't fully earn the sibling-differentiation point, but the purpose 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?

It gives a concrete use case: check this tool before diagnosing why nobody can submit, and explains how the signup-disabled flag affects login-gated quizzes. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a read-only getter with no parameters, this is useful contextual guidance.

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