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

The description and title both describe a preview-only operation ('nothing changed yet', 'Preview ... only'), but the annotations set readOnlyHint=false. This is an annotation contradiction, making the tool's side-effect profile unclear and untrustworthy.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. The dense phrasing and jargon like 'bind fields' slightly reduces accessibility, but the structure is appropriately compact.

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 tool with five parameters, nested input, no output schema, and a contradictory readOnly annotation, the description omits parameter semantics, return format, and how the preview result relates to the subsequent bind call. It is far from sufficient for correct invocation.

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 was the only place to explain draft_id, active_plan_id, approval_id, expected_plan_version, and expected_draft_version. It defines none of them, and 'bind fields are rejected' is too vague to tell the agent which parameters are bind fields versus valid preview inputs.

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 names a specific action and resource: previewing approval requirements for modifying an active interview plan. It also distinguishes itself from the bind operation by noting that bind fields are rejected, so an agent can tell this apart from the sibling bind tool.

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 frames this as the pre-bind approval-requirements preview and warns that bind fields are rejected, giving an agent a basis for choosing it over the actual modification/bind tool. However, it never explicitly names yardstick_interview_plans_modify_active_bind as the alternative when the agent is ready to apply changes.

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