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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Create,' and no mention of side effects, duplicate handling, or return values. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description itself contributes little.

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 one short sentence and is front-loaded with the action. 'Through the public Yardstick API' is unnecessary filler, but overall the text is efficient and easy to parse. It earns a 4 because it is concise, even though it does not carry much information.

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 eight parameters, zero schema descriptions, no required parameters, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is severely incomplete. An agent has no way to know which fields make sense together, what each identifier represents, how idempotency works, or what the API returns on success. This is far below the minimum needed for correct invocation.

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% and the description names none of the eight parameters. An agent cannot infer the meaning of request_id, idempotency_key, resume_url, linkedin_url, notes, or phone from the description. The schema gives types and constraints but no semantic guidance, and the description does not compensate.

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 specific action ('Create') and a resource ('a person'), which is enough to tell it apart from sibling tools like yardstick_people_list, yardstick_people_read, and yardstick_people_update. It does not go beyond the title, but it is not ambiguous or misleading. The phrase 'through the public Yardstick API' is filler rather than differentiator, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yardstick_people_update or yardstick_prospects_create. The description simply restates the action. A tool with many siblings would benefit from at least a note about whether this creates candidates/talent-pool members versus prospects, but none is provided.

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