主账号切换 token

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

The description states '后端还没有时会生成一个' (if the backend doesn't have one, it will generate one), which implies a write/side effect. This directly contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint: true, which declares the operation does not modify state. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent about the tool's behavioral profile.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('获取...切换 token') and then explains the purpose and the generation fallback. It is concise without unnecessary words, though it could potentially be streamlined further. The structure is effective for quick comprehension.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the edge case of token generation. However, the contradiction with the readOnlyHint annotation undermines trust and could cause the agent to mispredict side effects. The description is mostly complete but not fully reliable due to the inconsistency.

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 'product' is fully documented in the input schema with an enum and a Chinese description. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about parameters, so it relies entirely on the schema, which already covers 100% of the parameter semantics. This matches 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 clearly states a specific verb ('获取' / get) and resource ('动态住宅主账号的切换 token' / dynamic residential main account switch token) along with its purpose ('用于 api 子账号切换时的独立 token 验证' / for independent token verification when switching API sub-accounts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on sub-account operations, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies when to use this tool: when a main-account switch token is needed for API sub-account switching. However, it provides no exclusions, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to alternative tools. The context is clear but not explicit enough to guide an agent to select among siblings.

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