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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the description focuses on payload substance: what each row contains, that unchanged roles are included too, and that totals are appended. It doesn't cover ordering, pagination, or size behavior for very large workspaces, which is a real gap for an 'every role' read.

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?

The core scope statement is front-loaded, and every clause carries information about the returned fields. The stage enumeration and attention-reason list make the sentence long and dense, but nothing is padding.

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 must carry the return shape and it does: per-role row fields, totals row, inclusion of unchanged roles, and the sibling for drill-down. What's missing is operational detail — result ordering, volume limits, and whether attention reasons are always populated.

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% and the single workspace parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no syntax or format detail. The phrase 'in the workspace' only echoes scope already stated by the parameter. 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 the exact resource (every role in the workspace, one row each) and enumerates the metrics produced: documented hours vs. working month, saved hours, saved-hours by stage, judgment work before/now, new work, and attention reasons. It is immediately distinguishable from compass_role_story, which is explicitly named as the single-role alternative.

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?

Names the alternative (compass_role_story) and the selection rule (one role's detail vs. all roles), and adds a framing constraint ('talk about roles, never about people'). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite statement, but the routing guidance is clear.

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