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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that content is 'markdown' and that in MCP Apps-capable hosts it renders as a 'calm step-by-step checklist card', providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first defines content and structure, second gives usage and rendering context. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, content type, and rendering. It might lack error handling info or behavior for invalid slugs, but that is minor for a straightforward getter with good schema annotations.

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%, with each parameter having descriptions (lang enum details, slug guidance, type enum meanings). The description briefly mentions 'playbook' and 'prevention guide' but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states it returns 'full markdown of a crisis playbook or of a prevention guide', specifying content types. The title reinforces 'full content'. While it implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like compass_list_situations (which lists metadata), it does not explicitly distinguish from compass_find_playbook.

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?

The description says 'Suitable to relay to the user step by step', which implies when to use it (after selecting a playbook/guide). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like compass_find_playbook for searching.

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