avanza_select_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses that the operation is a read-only context switch and that no order mutations occur, which is valuable safety-relevant information for an agent invoking the 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 only two sentences and front-loads the core purpose first. Every phrase earns its place, with the safety clarification adding useful information without redundancy.

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 simple selection tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not describe what happens after the context switch, how it interacts with session/tenant routing, or what a successful result looks like.

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 only 33%, with account_id and session_id lacking descriptions. The description does not explain how account_id selects the context, how session_id relates to session routing, or how tenant_session_id should be used beyond the minimal schema note.

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: switching the MCP/TUI selected account context. The phrase 'Read-only context switch; no order mutations' helps distinguish it from order-mutating tools and implies account selection rather than session selection, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 usage is implied: select an account context for subsequent MCP/TUI operations. The 'no order mutations' clause signals when not to use it, but the description does not explicitly contrast it with avanza_select_session, avanza_accounts, or other context-selection tools.

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