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

Annotations declare idempotent=true and destructive=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the switch changes the target of every later Soclo tool on the connection (credits, Brand Kit, library, posts, connected accounts), and paid actions then spend the client's own credits while still going through quote and approval. That is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs before mutating session 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?

The audience qualifier and the primary mode come first, and every sentence carries a distinct instruction. The enumeration of affected resources is slightly verbose but does real work by conveying the blast radius of the switch.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the definition covers discovery mode, switch semantics, revert behavior, and the safety check before spending. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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 100%, so the enum values and format are already documented. The description still earns credit by naming the source of valid IDs (an accountId from the list) and by describing what each value does downstream, not just what it is.

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 action (switch the account context) and its three modes: no-arg listing, accountId switching, and "self" returning to the agency's own account. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling soclo_accounts_list, which also lists accounts and creates a plausible ambiguity.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance (call with no accountId to discover accounts, call with a listed accountId to switch, pass "self" to revert) and adds an operational caution about announcing the active business before paid or publishing actions. What's missing is an explicit warning not to use soclo_accounts_list for this purpose.

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