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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile, and the description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: newest-first ordering, the composition of the feed (step additions/removals plus claim events with replacement text), inclusion of source per item, and the key distinction that timestamps reflect when something was LEARNED versus when it was true (validFrom/validTo). It omits pagination/limit behavior.

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 content and ordering lead, with only two sentences and no filler. The em-dash-heavy run-on in the first sentence is dense and slightly hard to parse, but every clause adds information rather than restating the name or annotations.

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 full burden of explaining return values, and it does so in reasonable detail (event types, sources, ordering, temporal framing). It is nearly complete; only absent details like pagination or the default behavior of `since` keep it from a 5.

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 earns above baseline by disambiguating the temporal semantics of the `since` filter—clarifying it bounds learning-time, not claim validity. That directly resolves the ambiguity the schema's one-line parameter description leaves open.

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 concretely states what the tool returns: a newest-first feed of steps added/dropped and claim lifecycle events (said, corrected, withdrawn, accepted), each with its source. That is a specific resource and clearly more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of naming the overlapping siblings (compass_step_claims_list, compass_workflow_steps, compass_scenario_changes), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It gives two concrete use cases—briefing someone on what changed, and seeing what an interview added—which implies when to reach for it. However it never contrasts with the natural alternatives (a plain step list or claims list), and there are no when-not-to-use notes. Usage is implied rather than dictated.

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