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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by explaining what the returned data means — state OPEN waits for a person, APPLIED produced a change with an opportunityId, and `built` reflects what was constructed in Workbench. It omits pagination, result limits, and auth requirements, keeping it from 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?

Every clause carries information, and the sibling routing is placed last where it is most actionable. The opening sentence is a long, heavily parenthesized run-on ('for each suggestion... (nodeIds, labels)... (proposal.doer)... (reach)... (checklist, each item met or not)') that is dense rather than front-loaded, costing some readability.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it enumerates the fields of each suggestion record (nodeIds, labels, proposal.doer, reach, rationale, checklist) and defines the state vocabulary. For a read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 adds real routing semantics the schema does not convey: pageId and changeId are alternative modes that return different cardinality (all suggestions for a page vs. the single suggestion a change came from). The `workspace` parameter's token-dependent behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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 (list) and resource (step suggestions for a workflow), and the title/description both make the resource unambiguous. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings, naming compass_step_suggestions_build and warning off workbench_flows_scaffold.

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 an explicit alternate invocation mode: 'Pass changeId instead of pageId to get the one suggestion a change came from.' It also routes the agent to the correct tool for the follow-up action ('To build one, use compass_step_suggestions_build — not workbench_flows_scaffold'), which is a genuine when-not instruction.

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