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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed world), so the description correctly focuses on behavior instead: oldest-first ordering, coexistence of disagreeing claims, source retention, and the AI_PROPOSED review state. These are real traits beyond the annotations, with only pagination/result-size behavior left unstated.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a compact colon-delimited field list; every clause carries information about the returned shape. It is dense but not padded, and the ordering guarantee appears early.

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 takes on the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so well (step, subject, relation, source, validity window, origin). Missing only minor operational detail such as result limits or pagination for large claim sets.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: nodeId of null means 'the workflow as a whole' rather than a specific step, which materially affects how the filter is used. The workspace parameter semantics are left to the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource – listing every claim about a WORKFLOW's steps – and the title reinforces it. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling compass_step_claims_propose, but the read/list scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the read path for claims, and the note that AI_PROPOSED claims await human review hints at where the data comes from. However there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of the propose sibling as the alternative, and no guidance on when the nodeId filter should be applied.

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