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

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: this is a session-scoped state change that alters the role context of all subsequent tool calls, and it returns a list of tools the new account cannot call. It does not say whether the switch persists across sessions or how to revert, but the disclosed behavior is genuinely useful.

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, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the prerequisite and the side effects. Every clause earns its place.

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 session-mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key concerns: where the ID comes from, the scope of the change, and what the response contains. It stops short of explaining persistence or reversal, which is the only notable gap.

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 100% and the schema already states the uuid comes from list_accounts; the description repeats the same sourcing information without adding format, validation, or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 (Switch) plus the exact resource (the active DIDWW account/customer) and scopes it to 'this session'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like current_account (read) and list_accounts (enumerate), which is exactly the differentiation needed.

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 a prerequisite for the parameter ('Pass a user_access_id from list_accounts') and notes the effect on subsequent calls, but never states when an agent should switch versus simply reading with current_account, nor any when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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