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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral nuance that the access grant ID is a 'public id,' but it does not clarify response format, error conditions, or any side effects. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 description is a single, tight sentence that leads with the verb and resource. Every word contributes value, and there is no fluff or repetition. For a simple read operation, this level of brevity is appropriate.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe what the tool returns to be complete. It does not mention the response shape, whether the grant is returned in full or partial, or any error handling. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's outcome, making the definition incomplete for a read operation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of parameter explanation. It clarifies that access_grant_id is a public ID, but it says nothing about request_id, leaving its purpose ambiguous. The description only partially compensates for the complete lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 immediately states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'explicit access grant' with the qualifier 'by public id,' which clearly specifies the operation. It is easily distinguished from siblings like yardstick_access_grants_list or yardstick_access_grants_create, which have different purposes.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list should be used to find grants by other criteria, or create/revoke for mutations. The implied use case is a single lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusion information.

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