Get Tenant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what happens on a missing/invalid ID (error vs empty) or what the returned tenant object looks like.

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 text is two words and thus trivially concise, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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 a single required path parameter and rich annotations, the structured fields carry most of the load, but with no output schema the description should at least indicate what is returned or how failures surface. It contributes none of that, leaving the definition adequate only in the most minimal sense.

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% and there is only one parameter, whose schema text ("Tenant ID", path location) already documents it. The description does not add format hints or sourcing guidance, so baseline 3 applies for a fully-documented single-param schema.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus tenants_list (list all tenants) or the tenants_* sub-resource tools. The agent must infer the fetch-by-ID pattern entirely from the tool name and the required id parameter.

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