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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: match semantics, pagination, and the fact that results are truncated to a 300-char body snippet with a pointer to fetch full text.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its scope, then the primary use case, then the return-format caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 steps in to describe the return shape (summaries with a 300-char snippet) and the path to full content. Combined with the annotations and fully-described schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (including `workspace` auth nuance and `q` guidance). The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond noting the search fields and pagination, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Keyword search over page titles, bodies, and tags') and precisely characterizes matching semantics (case-insensitive substring). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `compass_pages_get`, so an agent can route 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?

Gives a clear use case ('fast way to check whether a subject already has a page before creating or linking') and an explicit alternative for full text (`compass_pages_get`). It does not differentiate from the other sibling `compass_pages_list`, which is a plausible source of confusion.

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