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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the batch and its rows are returned and lookup is by public id, but no further behavioral context (pagination, permissions, error cases) is disclosed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler, tautology, or redundant restatement of the title. Every word earns its place.

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, the core call (import_id by public id, returning batch and rows) is stated. However, with no output schema and no parameter documentation, request_id's purpose and the relationship between dry-run and apply batches remain unclear, making the description minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'By public id' clarifies that import_id is the batch's public identifier, but request_id is left completely unexplained and there is no hint about when it is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), names the resource ('ATS import dry-run/apply batch'), and states the payload scope ('and its rows'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like yardstick_ats_imports_apply and yardstick_ats_imports_dry_run.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is given. The read semantics imply it should be used to inspect a previously created dry-run/apply batch, but the description does not name apply/dry_run or explain when this read is preferable to other tools.

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