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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real post-write context beyond them: the record lands in the Compass Inbox and Needs-you for accept/dismiss, and approval is not required because the proposal itself is the gate. It stops short of auth/rate-limit detail but meaningfully explains consequences.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the sibling distinction before moving to prerequisites and parameter guidance. Dense but every sentence carries actionable information; em-dash clauses are slightly packed but not wasteful.

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?

For an 8-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, dedup precondition, anchoring, and scoring semantics. The main residual gap is that it never states what the call returns (e.g., an ID), which an agent would need despite the inbox description.

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 only 63%, and the description compensates for the gap: valueScore/feasibilityScore/riskScore have no schema descriptions, yet the description explains them as 1–5 scores, and it explains workflowPageId as an optional anchor 'when one fits'. This adds meaning the schema does not carry, above the baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb (file/propose) + resource (AI-PROPOSED opportunity) with an explicit scope note that it targets the review queue. It directly differentiates itself from the sibling compass_opportunities_create, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

Explicitly frames when to use this versus the alternative ('Unlike compass_opportunities_create this needs NO approval') and gives a precondition ('Check compass_opportunities_list first so you never duplicate'). Both the alternative and the exclusion condition are named.

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