List Tenants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral nuance beyond those annotations: saved connections may require re-authentication, and the output includes account names, granted scopes, and the configured default. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs when deciding whether to trust cached connection state.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and the returned data; the second covers the key caveat and points to the relevant sibling tool. 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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool, the description is complete: it names the returned fields, explains how to use the result, and flags the authentication caveat. No output schema exists, but the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know to select and use the tool correctly.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the input schema is already exhaustive and there are no parameters to document. The description orients the agent to the meaningful output fields, which is all that is needed for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List connected Microsoft Teams tenants', and specifies the exact returned fields (account names, granted scopes, configured default). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_teams and list_channels, which operate at different levels of the Microsoft Teams hierarchy.

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 gives clear operational context: use the returned tenantId in subsequent tool calls, and use auth_status to check live access when saved connections may need re-authentication. It provides an explicit alternative for the auth edge case, though it does not explicitly contrast list_tenants with list_teams or list_channels.

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