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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the description adds substantive context beyond that: result ordering, the status lifecycle values, that transcript review is signalled by documentPageId being set, and that invite URLs are only present while the link is live. For a no-output-schema tool this is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with scope and returned fields, then usage, then the sibling pointer — a logical order with no filler sentences. The field enumeration makes the middle sentence dense, but each clause carries information since no output schema exists.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly: fields, status values, ordering, and liveness caveat. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented single parameter, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

There is a single 'workspace' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains slug/default/API-key semantics fully. The description only implies workspace scoping and adds no format or defaulting detail for the parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (list stakeholder interviews) and immediately enumerates scope: workspace-wide, newest first, with the exact fields returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from compass_interviews_get, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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 concrete when-to-use conditions — 'Check this before inviting someone again' and answering 'who have we already asked?' — plus the reason (interview fatigue) and an explicit route to compass_interviews_get for full-detail reads. Nothing about selection 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.