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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that the switch takes effect immediately for subsequent tool calls and persists across sessions only under OAuth, not API key auth. That is exactly the kind of session-state behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action, precondition, and effect ordered front-to-back. Nothing is padded and no clause is redundant with 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining gaps for a state-mutating tool: who may call it, how long the effect lasts, and how authentication mode changes persistence.

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 teamId property already documents both the source (list_teams) and the membership requirement. The description repeats the membership constraint rather than adding format or sourcing detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — 'Switch the active team' — with the exact scope of the change (this Bearer token). No sibling in the list performs a comparable mutation, so an agent can identify it unambiguously from the name plus this sentence.

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 supplies a real precondition (the user must be a member of the target team) and explains the session/OAuth persistence condition, but never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as list_teams or get_account_health. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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