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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine domain context beyond structured data: the five group taxonomy, the fact that groups are stable while names are not, and the ordering guarantee ('in board order'). It does not discuss return format or pagination, which is acceptable for a small list tool.

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-loads the identity of the resource, then layers in the taxonomy and the stable-vs-unstable distinction. Four sentences, all informative, though the group enumeration and cross-reference sentence make it slightly denser than strictly necessary for a one-parameter list tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of conveying what comes back; it does this well by explaining names, groups, and ordering. Lacking only explicit return-shape/pagination detail, which is minor for a simple status lookup.

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% and the single workspace parameter is fully documented in the schema (default-workspace and API-key behavior). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — listing the workspace's change statuses — and uniquely characterizes them as the values changes 'move through, in board order.' It also names the sibling that mutates them (compass_opportunities_set_status), so an agent can place it precisely among the many compass_* tools.

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 practical guidance for how to consume the result (use names with people, groups for reasoning) and points to compass_opportunities_set_status for the corresponding mutation. It stops short of an explicit 'call this when you need X' trigger or any when-not, but the context is clear.

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