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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false, so mutation semantics are covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the not_proposed failure condition, the needs_confirmation round-trip with approvalId, and the status defaulting to NEW. It stops short of explaining what 'promote' does to the source proposal or any irreversibility, 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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and sibling distinction lead, followed by parameter behavior, failure mode, and the confirmation caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the several clauses make it slightly heavy for a single-paragraph description.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the return-signal territory an agent needs (not_proposed failure, needs_confirmation handling, where ids originate). For a mutation tool with full annotation coverage, nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds real meaning: status chooses the lane in the same step with a stated default, and approvalId is tied to the two-step needs_confirmation flow (omit on first call). This goes beyond the schema's field-level text.

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 (promotes an AI-proposed opportunity into the workspace pipeline) and explicitly differentiates from compass_opportunities_set_status, which 'does NOT do this.' An agent can distinguish it from all siblings without opening a 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?

Explicitly names the source of proposals (compass_opportunities_propose / opportunity scout), the alternative that won't work (set_status), and where ids come from (compass_inbox_list / compass_opportunities_list). When-to-use is fully covered with the counter-case named.

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