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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: enumerates what the agency can see (connections, stuck drafts, failures, plan, audit score) and a privacy boundary ('never their customers' details'). It also imposes a consent requirement, which is valuable behavioral guidance. Annotations already cover safety (non-destructive, idempotent), but the description reveals data-sharing scope and authorization needs.

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?

Efficiently packed into two sentences with no filler. Front-loads the target user context rather than the core action, but remains readable and appropriately sized.

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?

Covers target user, purpose, data scope, privacy, parameter usage, and consent rule. No output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Minor gap: it does not clarify behavior when no agency is connected.

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%, already explaining share: true/false and that leaving it out means just checking. The description repeats true/false but adds no new parameter semantics; the consent rule is usage guidance rather than parameter meaning.

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: checking or switching whether an agency can see the business owner's account health. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like my_agency (agency details) by focusing on access visibility. Also identifies the target user (business owner brought by an agency).

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?

Provides clear context on who this is for and an explicit consent guideline: 'Only switch it on when the owner asks to.' However, it does not name alternative tools or explain when to use this versus my_agency or update_my_agency_details.

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