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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it is scoped to the active company, page continuation is via offset, and "this connection cannot undo changes" clarifies there is no revert capability here. It does not describe what a change batch contains, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The trailing "Set action to one of: list" is slightly awkward phrasing for a single-value enum but still earns its place by removing ambiguity about the required action.

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 read-only listing tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination and scope adequately. The gaps are the unexplained `name` parameter and the absence of any hint about what a returned batch looks like or page size.

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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It explains `offset` (paginated continuation) and `action` (must be "list"), but the `name` parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. Partial compensation justifies a 3, not higher.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "List recent batches of changes made by the Switchbooks agent in the active company." An agent can tell this apart from manage_transactions or manage_journal_entries because it is scoped to agent-made change history. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, but the scope 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?

"Use the history to understand what changed and when" gives a purpose, and the offset sentence covers pagination continuation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance and no stated conditions or exclusions, so the usage is only implied.

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