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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description is free to add payload-level context, which it does: it discloses that the response is metadata plus the guest's verbatim transcript and that the transcript is the downstream source of truth. It adds no auth, size, or error-handling context, but against read-only annotations this is solid added value.

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 resource and payload, with no filler sentences. The middle sentence is clause-heavy ('the transcript is the source you work from, and your compass skill has the rules for typing and splitting what's in it') and the final clause is slightly indirect, but it still earns its place as workflow context.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the two payload components (metadata, transcript). Combined with the read-only annotations and a fully documented schema, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only permission/auth specifics are left implicit.

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 both parameters are documented there and 3 is the baseline. The description adds one small piece the schema lacks — that ids may also come from compass_inbox_list, not only compass_interviews_list — but does not otherwise elaborate on parameter meaning.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('One interview in full — metadata plus the transcript') and states the scope that distinguishes it from compass_interviews_list: this returns the full record including transcript, not a list. An agent can immediately tell what it fetches without opening the 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?

It states a clear use condition ('Read this before summarizing an interview or drafting pages from it') and routes the agent to where ids come from (compass_interviews_list, compass_inbox_list). There is no explicit when-not or note about how this relates to bulk retrieval, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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