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

Annotations declare destructive/idempotent/not-readOnly, and the description adds real value beyond them: the authorization rule (non-HM callers get 'application not found'), the reason-code constraint (system or org codes only), and the concrete consequence that 'Reject disqualifies the candidate'. It still says nothing about idempotency or the scheduling side effect of approve_and_schedule.

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?

Three dense sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-critical constraint (permission gate) is front-loaded after the one-line purpose statement.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers authorization, reason codes, and the reject consequence but omits idempotency/request-id semantics and parameter documentation, leaving clear gaps an agent must guess at.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden but only partially compensates: it constrains reason_code_ids and hints at the 'reject' decision value, while note, request_id, idempotency_key, and the other four decision enum values are never mentioned.

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?

States a specific verb ('Decide') and resource ('application') and adds the scoping qualifier 'without a review task', which separates it from decision paths that involve review tasks or the email-decision apply/preview siblings. It is clear, though it does not name the specific sibling alternative by name.

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 a permission gate (only the hiring manager) and an implicit scenario ('without a review task'), but it never explicitly names when to prefer this over yardstick_applications_transition_direct or yardstick_applications_email_decision_apply. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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