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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the visibility scoping ('public' and 'visible to the current principal') but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or other runtime behavior.

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 clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the scopeful visibility qualifier.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter semantics in the description, the agent is left without important details such as response shape, pagination behavior, or how request_id and starting_after interact. The annotations cover safety but not the operational details needed for a correct call.

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 adds no meaning for limit, request_id, or starting_after. An agent must guess that starting_after is a pagination cursor and request_id is an identifier filter purely from parameter names.

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 verb (List), a specific resource (Yardstick audit log entries), and a scope qualifier (public entries visible to the current principal). This clearly distinguishes it from the many other list tools among the siblings.

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 implies the tool is for viewing audit log entries, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. The 'visible to the current principal' qualifier provides some access context, but no conditions, exclusions, or sibling comparisons.

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