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 valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states the tool 'mints no scheduling link, creates no task, sends no email; executes nothing.' This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure that helps an agent trust the tool is safe. It doesn't describe the return format, but with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description does a solid job.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and the second sentence lists the non-effects. The 'INERT' emphasis is front-loaded and the safety guarantees are stated explicitly. 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 preview/dry-run tool with strong annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint all set), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it doesn't do, and the scenario it applies to. The only gap is that it doesn't describe what the response contains (resolved action params are mentioned but not detailed), and it doesn't explain the trigger parameter's two enum values. Given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, this is a minor gap.

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%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'a sample application entering/leaving a stage' which maps to application_id, trigger, and pipeline_stage_id. However, it doesn't explain the trigger enum values (stage_enter vs stage_exit) or the optional request_id and idempotency_key parameters. The description adds some meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 ('preview'), a specific resource ('automation rules'), and the exact scenario ('a sample application entering/leaving a stage'). The title reinforces this with 'runs nothing'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like yardstick_automation_rules_list (which lists rules) and yardstick_automation_runs_list (which lists actual runs).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you want to know which automations would fire for a stage change without actually triggering them. The 'INERT' emphasis and 'executes nothing' clarify it's a dry-run alternative to actually applying a stage change. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like yardstick_applications_transition_preview or yardstick_applications_transition_direct, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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