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 goes well beyond that, disclosing the ranking precedence, the skip rule for recent interviewees (interview fatigue), and the empty-result recovery procedure — real behavioral context. Minor gaps only (no pagination/limit behavior), so not a full 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?

Front-loaded with the ranking purpose, then output contents, then the fallback, then the routing instruction — a logical order with little waste. The parentheticals are dense but each carries distinct information, so it is efficient without being terse.

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 describe returns — and it does: each target carries contact email, role, and latest interview. Combined with the ranking order and empty-result guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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 coverage is 100%, so pageId and workspace are already documented in the schema. The description implies pageId means 'the page the knowledge gap is about' but adds no format or syntax detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is correct 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 — ranks the PEOPLE the map says know about a page — and immediately narrows the domain (workflow, system, pain point). The ranking rule (owns first, then involved_in, then weaker edges) makes it unmistakable versus siblings like compass_interviews_create or compass_step_claims_list.

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 routes the agent: 'Use before compass_interviews_create to pick the interviewee.' It also names the alternative action when the result is empty (ask the user, create PERSON page + owns link), so both the happy path and the fallback are covered.

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