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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is present in structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain what the destructive write touches, why expected_draft_revision exists (optimistic concurrency / stale-revision failure), or how idempotency_key is honored under retries.

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?

Two short sentences are front-loaded and easy to scan, so it is not bloated. However, the second sentence is pure redundancy with the schema's required array, so it does not earn 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 destructive, non-read-only mutation with a 5-parameter schema at 0% description coverage and a nested answers object, the description is far too thin. There is no output schema to lean on and no explanation of side effects, revision-conflict behavior, or what a successful fill-in changes.

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% across 5 parameters (4 required, including a nested free-form object), so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. Its single parameter statement—that expected_draft_revision is required—merely repeats the schema's required list and gives no semantics for answers, offer_id, idempotency_key, or request_id.

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 recognizable verb+resource (“fill in the answers the offer documents ask for”), which is clearer than the bare name. But it never distinguishes this from close siblings such as yardstick_offers_update or yardstick_offers_documents_edit, so an agent cannot tell which write path is correct without opening schemas.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of an alternative tool. The only guidance offered is a restatement that expected_draft_revision is required, which is not usage advice relative to alternatives.

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