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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the payload contents (full Markdown body, header fields, attached sketches), which tells the agent what to expect in the response.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and result contents. The trailing em-dash aside about napkin_boards_view is useful but slightly crowded into the same sentence, costing a point on structure.

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 burden of explaining returns, and it does so adequately (body, header fields, sketches). Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers both parameters, so the remaining gaps (error behavior, page-not-found handling) are minor.

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 (pageId and workspace) are already fully documented in the schema, including the per-call workspace override rules. The description only restates 'by id' and references boardId for a sibling tool, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (fetches) and resource (one Compass page by id), and enumerates what is returned (Markdown body, header fields, attached Napkin sketches). This clearly distinguishes it from compass_pages_list and compass_pages_search, which handle collections or querying rather than single-page retrieval.

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?

Gives a concrete usage cue — view an attached sketch via napkin_boards_view before discussing it — which routes the agent to the right sibling for the sketch sub-task. It does not, however, state when to use this vs. compass_pages_list or compass_pages_search, so primary-tool selection is left to inference.

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