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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds a genuine prerequisite beyond them: the Business workspace requires a Business subscription, which is a real error condition. However, it does not explain whether the switch persists across sessions or affects subsequent tool calls. Note also that the annotation idempotentHint=false is unusual for a toggle, and the description does not clarify why repeated calls differ.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first; both parentheticals carry information that would otherwise be missing. Slightly awkward phrasing ("between their Personal workspace" with no antecedent for "their") costs a point but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter toggle with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers purpose, both enum values, and the subscription prerequisite. The remaining gap — what switching actually affects downstream (e.g., which businesses later tools return) — is a minor omission rather than a blocker.

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 carries the burden, and it does: it explains the meaning of both enum values ("personal" = own businesses, "agent" = businesses registered for clients) plus the subscription constraint on the agent value. That is meaningfully more than the bare enum list in the schema, though it does not describe failure behavior for an unauthorized switch.

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 uses a specific verb ("Switch") and resource ("the dashboard between their Personal workspace ... and the Business workspace") and defines both workspace modes in parentheticals, so the agent knows exactly what changes. It stops short of naming a sibling tool it supersedes, but no other workspace-switching sibling exists in the catalog, so differentiation is less critical here.

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 parentheticals effectively state when each value applies: "personal" for "their own businesses" and "agent" for "businesses they register for clients," and it flags that the agent mode "needs the Business subscription." There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or statement of what happens to in-flight context, but the selection condition between the two modes is unambiguous.

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