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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the human-approval precondition, which is real context. However, it never says what switching actually changes (presumably the active company context for subsequent calls) or what happens if no approved proposal exists.

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 sentences, no waste, with the action stated first and the precondition second. Every sentence carries a distinct, load-bearing instruction.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the action and the approval gate but leaves the token's provenance and the tool's post-call effect on session state unstated. Adequate to call correctly, incomplete to call confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for two bare parameters. It does link company_key to 'the company named in an approved proposal' and confirmation_token to the person's agreement, but it never says where the token originates (presumably propose_company_switch) or that company_key is a numeric identifier.

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 ('switch to the company') and ties the target to an approved proposal, which implicitly separates it from propose_company_switch. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, but an agent can distinguish the execution step from the proposal step.

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?

'Only call this after the person has agreed to that exact switch' gives an explicit precondition and implies the propose-then-execute flow. No exclusion of alternatives is spelled out, but the gating condition is unambiguous.

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