get_tenant_ledgers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'list's data, implying read-only operation, but fails to mention any potential side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or whether results are paginated or filtered. The clarification that ledgers are 'rental agreements' adds minor context but is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 brief, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides a usage example. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, e.g., mentioning optional filtering by facility.

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 has an output schema (not shown) which lessens the need to describe return values. The description covers the essential purpose and a typical use case. However, it lacks details on result structure, pagination, or any constraints (e.g., whether only active ledgers are returned). Given the low complexity (2 parameters), a 3 is adequate but not thorough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only elaborates on 'tenant_id' through the use case example, giving it meaning as identifying the tenant. However, 'facility_id' is completely unexplained—its purpose, optionality with default null, and how it filters results are missing. The description adds some value but falls short of adequately describing both parameters.

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 action ('List') and resource ('a tenant's current ledgers'), with a parenthetical clarifying ledger meaning ('rental agreements'). It is specific to a tenant context. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_current_ledgers' or 'get_ledger', which could be confused as similar operations.

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 an explicit use case quoted as a natural language question ('what units is tenant <id> renting?'), which gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as 'get_ledger' for a single ledger or 'list_current_ledgers' for all ongoing ledgers.

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