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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the create action is expected. The description adds the useful context that it does not mutate related entities (postings, applications, interview plans), which clarifies its side-effect scope. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors like permissions, reversibility, or response format.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and adds a meaningful scoping constraint. No wasted words.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in either schema or tool description, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Job container' is, what parameters mean, what the response looks like, or any prerequisites. The only context added is the non-mutation of other entities.

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?

The description provides no parameter information whatsoever. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The agent is left entirely to the raw schema, which has no descriptions either.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('internal Job container'), and explicitly clarifies what it does NOT mutate (job postings, applications, interview plans). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like yardstick_job_postings_create and yardstick_jobs_update.

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 that this tool is for creating a job container independent of postings/applications/interview plans, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No explicit conditions, exclusions, or named sibling tools are provided.

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