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

Annotations disclose the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real value by explaining the session-scoped effect: subsequent tool calls operate on the new product. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or error behavior, so not a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage trigger, then downstream consequence. Zero wasted words.

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 single-param, low-complexity tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it explains purpose, invocation condition, prerequisite, and session-wide effect.

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% and the schema already states the parameter is the product ID to switch to and to get it from meisa_list_products; the description merely restates this. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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+resource ('Switch the active Meisa product for this session') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like meisa_create_product and meisa_list_products, which are separate resources/operations.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('when the user asks to work with a different product or says switch to my X product') and names the prerequisite alternative step (call meisa_list_products first to get the product_id). Nothing is left to inference.

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