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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent). The description goes beyond them by disclosing that the change persists for the account, takes effect on the next question, and affects every connected AI client — valuable scope and timing context an agent could not infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds only relevant operational details. Appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the line-broken formatting is slightly less compact than it could be.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described. For a single-parameter state-changing tool the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, persistence, and cross-client scope — essentially complete, missing only explicit auth or error behavior.

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 carry the load — and it does, explaining the label parameter with a concrete example ("Texas"), the source of valid values (list_rm_connections), and the special 'org default' value. Minor gap: no note on matching or case sensitivity.

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 which Rent Manager database your questions run against.' This is unmistakably distinct from the many analyze_*/get_*/list_* siblings and instantly identifies it as the connection-switching tool.

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 clear context for use — pass a connection label or 'org default' to revert — and routes the agent to the sibling list_rm_connections for valid label values. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite statement, but the operating condition is unambiguous.

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