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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond them — the response includes per-document readiness/'what each still needs before sending' — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what an unready document looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the readiness detail second; nothing is wasted. It is essentially the title verbatim, so it is terse rather than padded.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the resource and the shape of the value (documents + readiness), which is roughly adequate. However, with 0% parameter documentation and no disambiguation from the library-documents list sibling, the definition is only minimally complete.

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 two parameters (offer_id required, request_id optional), and the description explains neither. It gives no indication of what offer_id refers to, whether request_id is an idempotency key, or how scoping works, leaving the agent to guess at both parameters.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives, and the sibling set contains a genuinely confusable neighbor (yardstick_offers_library_documents_list, yardstick_offers_documents_change_packet). The agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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