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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing match semantics (case-insensitive substring), that results are paginated summaries with a 300-char body snippet, and the handoff to compass_pages_get. It does not state result ordering or how snippet truncation affects matching, which is the only remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, all load-bearing: match semantics first, then the routing use case, then the return shape and follow-up tool. No filler.

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 compensates by specifying the return shape (summaries with 300-char snippets), the pagination contract, and the fetch-full-text alternative. For a 5-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and clean annotations, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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%, including the useful 'use the most distinctive word, not full sentences' guidance for q, the limit range, and the workspace-auth caveat, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the keyword/pagination concept, adding nothing beyond it; 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 (keyword search) and resource (Compass pages), plus the exact match scope: titles, bodies, tags, case-insensitive substring. An agent can distinguish it from compass_pages_list (unfiltered listing) and compass_pages_get (full text retrieval) without opening a 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?

Gives clear context — 'the fast way to check whether a subject already has a page before creating or linking' — and names compass_pages_get as the follow-up for full text. It does not explicitly say when to prefer it over compass_pages_list or search_docs/search_workspace, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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