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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the nuance that the lookup uses a 'public id' (as opposed to an internal id), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose response format, error behavior, or any special permissions needed, but given annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and the identifier type is included without unnecessary words. Every part contributes to the core meaning.

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 simple read-by-ID tool, the description gives the essential action, but with no output schema, no parameter descriptions for request_id, and no detail on what fields are returned or how to interpret the response, an agent may struggle to use it correctly. The missing request_id semantics and return structure are notable gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains person_id as a 'public id' but gives no format or source for it. The request_id parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving an agent to guess its purpose (likely correlation/tracing). The description adds meaning for one of two parameters only.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one person by public id'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like yardstick_people_list (which reads multiple) and yardstick_people_create/update. The identifier type ('public id') adds precision beyond the tool name alone.

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 implies usage for fetching a single person by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives such as yardstick_people_list or when not to use it. There is no exclusionary guidance or mention of alternative tools; the differentiation rests on the word 'one'.

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