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

The title and description explicitly claim no state change ('nothing changed yet,' 'Preview ... only'), but the annotations set readOnlyHint=false. This is an annotation contradiction. The description does add useful context about rejecting bind fields, but the conflicting readOnlyHint undermines the behavioral signal.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first clause. The second clause is terse but relevant. It wastes no words, though 'bind fields are rejected' could be clearer.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and four undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It does not describe what the approval requirements look like, how the response is structured, what makes a request valid, or how to act on the preview results. The non-mutating nature is clear, but substantial operational context is missing.

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%, and the description does not explain application_id, reason, request_id, or idempotency_key. The only parameter-related statement, 'bind fields are rejected,' is ambiguous about which fields those are and does not compensate for the complete lack of 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 states a specific action ('Preview') on a specific resource ('application archive approval requirements') and limits scope with 'only.' The title reinforces the non-mutating nature with 'nothing changed yet,' and the warning that 'bind fields are rejected' helps distinguish this from the archive_bind sibling.

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 phrase 'Preview ... only' and 'bind fields are rejected' clearly tells an agent this is not the tool for actually performing the archive bind. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or say 'use this before yardstick_applications_archive_bind,' so the when-to-use guidance is mostly implied rather than fully explicit.

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