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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real workflow context beyond them: no approval gate, the item lands in the Compass Inbox and the cockpit's Needs-you for accept/dismiss, and the inherent duplicate risk. It omits auth/permission specifics, which is the only real gap.

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 and front-loaded: the core action and its routing distinction come first, followed by the guard-rail and the scoring hint. Slightly packed with parentheticals but every clause carries routing or behavioral value.

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 and 8 parameters at 63% coverage, the description fills the important gaps: what happens after the call (review queue, accept/dismiss) and the duplicate-check prerequisite. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though workspace/auth edge cases are left to the schema.

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 63%, so the schema does much of the work. The description adds the scoring scale for value/feasibility/risk (1-5) and the anchoring intent for workflowPageId, but says nothing about reasoning or the workspace parameter's token semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('File an AI-PROPOSED opportunity into the workspace's review queue') and frames it as 'the scouting verb'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling compass_opportunities_create, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use routing ('Unlike compass_opportunities_create this needs NO approval'), a prerequisite ('Check compass_opportunities_list first so you never duplicate an idea'), and a conditional recommendation ('Anchor to a workflow page when one fits'). This is exactly the when/alternatives guidance expected.

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