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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, and the description stays consistent while adding the key trait beyond them: this call only proposes, the actual switch happens elsewhere, and a user confirmation gate is required. What 'the answer' contains is left unstated (no output schema).

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the safety constraint. No filler.

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 single-parameter, no-output proposal tool the behavioral picture (propose only, confirm before continuing) is essentially complete; only the source/meaning of company_key is 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?

One parameter with 0% schema coverage: company_key is only described as a numeric pattern. The description never says it identifies the target connected company or where to obtain it (e.g. list_connected_companies), so an agent gets no meaning beyond the field name.

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?

A concrete verb and object: 'Ask to make a different connected company the one changes are written to.' The word 'Ask' plus the following sentence make it distinguishable from execute_company_switch, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

Gives a clear when-not ('Reading needs no switch') and a procedural rule for use ('show the person the answer and only continue if they say yes'). It doesn't explicitly point to execute_company_switch as the follow-up step, so the alternative is implied rather than named.

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