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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile, so the description's real contribution is disclosing the result shape: bidirectional edges each hydrated with the other endpoint's page summary. That return-format detail is genuinely useful and absent from annotations, though nothing is said about volume limits or ordering.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scope of what is returned front-loaded before the usage hint.

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 a two-parameter read tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and when to reach for it. The only gap is any mention of result size or pagination for a page with many edges.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (pageId, workspace, including the workspace default/override semantics) are documented there. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, 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 (list) plus the exact resource and scope: 'all typed edges touching one page, both directions.' Clearly separates it from the write siblings (compass_links_create/update/delete) without needing to name them.

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?

'Use this to understand a subject's neighborhood before adding to it' supplies a clear context and implicitly routes the agent to the link-mutation siblings for the 'adding' step, but it names no alternative tool explicitly and gives no when-not-to-use condition.

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