list-tenants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read-only GET operation. It adds useful context that results are scoped to the current PAT, but doesn't describe return shape or pagination behavior; consistent with a baseline 3 given annotation coverage.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, scope, and endpoint. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 read-only list operation, the description, schema, and readOnlyHint together provide enough to invoke it correctly: optional search/paging params are documented, and the endpoint/scope are stated. It could be slightly stronger by naming a return shape or when not to use it, but no critical invocation details are missing.

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?

All three parameters (q, page, itemsPerPage) have descriptions in the schema, so coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter detail; baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tenants'), and adds the relevant scope 'for this PAT' plus the REST endpoint. This makes it clearly distinct from singular get-tenant and other list-* siblings.

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 does not explicitly state when to choose list-tenants over get-tenant or list-teams, nor does it provide alternative routing. The phrase 'for this PAT' implies the auth-scoped listing context, but the agent must infer selection from the tool name.

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