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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that a new token is issued, that the current MCP connection is not mutated, and that the returned token must be used later—all non-obvious behavioral traits beyond what annotations or the schema indicate.

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, each serving a clear purpose: core action, behavioral consequence, and operator preference. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and no sentence is wasted on schema duplication or filler.

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?

With one required parameter, an output schema present, and neutral annotations, the description covers purpose, side-effect profile, and the required post-call step. It references list_my_companies for parameter discovery, and the output schema handles return details. Nothing essential for calling the tool is missing.

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 sole parameter companyId is already fully documented in the schema, including a pointer to list_my_companies for finding valid IDs. The description adds only a slight scoping nuance ('another company/organisation') over the schema, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb and resource: 'Issue a new MCP access token scoped to another company/organisation.' It also distinguishes itself from typical 'switch' tools by clarifying that it does not mutate the current connection, which separates it from any sibling that might actually change context server-side.

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 description explicitly instructs that the client must use the returned token on later /mcp requests, which is a clear usage directive. It also states that platform operators should prefer explicit-company admin tools when available, giving a when-not and pointing to an alternative—though the alternative is generic rather than naming a specific sibling tool.

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