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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms a non-destructive state change. It adds value by explaining that the switch persists across calls, which annotations do not capture. No contradictions.

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 description is two sentences: the first defines the action, the second explains the effect. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no superfluous information.

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 one-parameter, state-changing tool, the description adequately covers the purpose and side effect. The output schema (present but not shown) likely documents the return value, so the description need not. A minor gap is the lack of mention of error conditions or idempotency, but annotations fill some of that.

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% with a clear description for companyId. The tool description does not add parameter-level context beyond the schema, which already states the parameter is required and must be in the operator's portfolio. 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Switch the active company context') and its effect on subsequent tool calls. It differentiates from sibling tools like operator.dashboard or operator.get_portfolio, which are read-only context queries.

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?

The description explains the consequence of use—'All subsequent tool calls will execute in the new company context'—which implies when to switch. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though no direct alternative exists among siblings.

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