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

Annotations already declare that this is a read-only, idempotent operation, covering the core behavioral safety profile. The description focuses entirely on the status fields it returns, adding contextual scope rather than new behavioral traits (like rate limits or specific authentication requirements).

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 maximally concise, stating its purpose in a single, dense sentence. There is no fluff, and the focus is entirely on defining the scope of the data being read.

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?

The description is complete regarding the tool's intended purpose (what statuses are accessed). However, since no output schema is provided, the description is incomplete in communicating the expected data structure of these statuses, which is a necessary piece of context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of clarity on input parameters. However, the description only details the statuses returned (output), failing completely to add meaning or guidance regarding the required input parameters like 'offer_id' 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?

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?

The description is purely descriptive of the tool's function. It does not provide any guidance on when an agent should choose this tool over, for example, 'yardstick_offers_read' or 'yardstick_offers_timeline', making its usage context ambiguous.

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