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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the session is revoked, re-authorization is triggered, and the consent-page link signs in a different user, plus a stated return shape. This is meaningful disclosure for a mutation-adjacent tool.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then the usage condition, then the outcome, and finally the return value. It is slightly padded but every sentence carries information; nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the trigger condition, the side effects, and an expected return ('status and instructions'). An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though side-effect reversibility and post-switch state are not fully elaborated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning to add or omit, and the schema is trivially complete.

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 states a specific action (revoke the current session and force re-authorization) that is clearly distinct from sibling tools like update_user_profile or get_user_profile. It explains the mechanism behind 'switch_account' rather than restating the name. It doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clear when-to-use condition: 'Relevant when the session is authenticated as the wrong user.' That is concrete context for selection, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is offered.

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