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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial extra behavior: the ranking order (owns > involved_in > weaker edges), fatigue-avoidance skip logic for recent interviewees, and the empty-result recovery path. This is well beyond what the annotations convey.

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 core action, then ranking order, then empty-result handling, then the sibling pointer. Dense but each sentence carries actionable information; minor length from parentheticals keeps it just short of ideal.

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 still explains what each target carries (contact email, role, latest interview), so an agent knows what it gets back. It also covers the failure mode, making it complete for a 2-param read tool.

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% and the schema already documents pageId and workspace semantics in detail. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond 'a page', 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 (ranks) and resource (PEOPLE who know about a page), with explicit scope and an ordered edge taxonomy. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like compass_pages_get or compass_interviews_create.

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 says 'Use before compass_interviews_create to pick the interviewee', naming the sibling and the sequencing. It also prescribes what to do on an empty result (ask the user, create PERSON + owns link), covering the when and the when-not.

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