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 elsewhere. The only addition is the visibility scoping ('visible to you'), which hints at permission-based filtering, but nothing about pagination behavior, default ordering, or result size given the cursor/limit parameters.

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 short sentence with zero padding, so nothing is wasted — but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. It is front-loaded but empty of actionable content.

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?

An 11-parameter, filter-heavy list tool with 0% schema descriptions and no output schema is documented by one sentence with no parameters. This is grossly insufficient for an agent to call it correctly; the enum of 12 offer states and the boolean filters (current, unsigned, include_archived) are entirely unexplained.

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 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not mention a single one — not limit, cursor, state, current, unsigned, person_id, application_id, valid_after/before, request_id, or include_archived. The agent has no idea what most filters mean or how they interact.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus yardstick_offers_read (single offer), yardstick_offers_status, or the many other offer-listing-adjacent tools. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the name. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are given.

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