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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping constraint 'visible to the current principal,' which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it omits other behavioral details like pagination behavior, ordering, or default limits, so it only partially supplements the annotations.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. The structure is simple and readable, earning a high score on conciseness despite the lack of depth.

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 list operation with three pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not describe what is returned, how pagination works, or any default behavior. An agent would lack essential information to invoke the tool correctly, especially given the ambiguous resource description.

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 any of the three parameters (limit, request_id, starting_after). Since the schema itself provides no descriptions, the description carries the full burden but fails to clarify parameter meanings, making it nearly impossible to use correctly.

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 clear verb ('List') and a resource ('application person + Job attachments'), but the resource is ambiguous and poorly worded. It does not distinguish this tool from other list operations in the sibling set, such as yardstick_opportunities_list or yardstick_people_list, and the phrase 'application person + Job attachments' is confusing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or comparison to related tools like yardstick_applications_read or other list tools. An agent would have no help deciding which list tool fits a given need.

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