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

Goes well beyond destructiveHint/idempotentHint by disclosing the resulting state ('The previous Owner becomes Admin') and what does NOT change (resource and billing IDs), plus lost-response retry guidance. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before making an irreversible ownership change.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the gate, then the side effect, then the retry rule. Every clause carries operational information with no restatement of the title.

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?

Strong coverage of authorization, side effects, and retry behavior for a destructive five-parameter mutation. Gaps: 'eligible' is left undefined (what roles/conditions qualify a member), the 'reason' field is unexplained, and there is no output schema, so the caller does not know what a success response confirms.

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 80% and already documents accountId, newOwnerMembershipId, idempotencyKey, and expectedCommandVersion in detail. The description only reinforces the idempotencyKey retry rule and says nothing about 'reason' or the eligibility criteria for the new owner, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Transfer Account ownership') plus the target constraint ('an eligible existing member'), which is enough to separate it from sibling reads like company_get_ownership and from member-management tools like company_offboard_member. No ambiguity about what changes.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite call ('first read company_get_ownership'), the authorization gate ('Owner only'), and the required human step ('obtain explicit confirmation'). An agent has a concrete pre-flight sequence rather than an inference.

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