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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by enumerating the possible decision states returned (advanced, held, waiting, none), which is otherwise absent since there is no output schema.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and ends with the useful return-value enumeration. No filler.

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 simple read tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return states adequately. However, the two parameters are undocumented and the phrase 'step that waits on one' is slightly convoluted, leaving an agent to infer the scoping semantics.

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 never mentions application_id or request_id. The application_id name is self-evident, but request_id (likely an idempotency/correlation key) is entirely unexplained in either the description or the schema.

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 ('Read') and resource (the hiring manager's decision on the candidate's latest pending step), which is enough to distinguish it from the write sibling yardstick_applications_decide_hiring_step. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so an agent must infer the read/write split, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as yardstick_applications_read or yardstick_applications_decide_hiring_step. The read-only intent is only implied by the verb 'Read'.

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