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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it returns 'ordered stages', which is a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe what happens if the pipeline_id is not found or the response format, but for a read tool with strong annotations, this is adequate.

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?

One sentence, 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place. The key scoping detail ('by public id') is included. No fluff.

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 tool with 2 params (1 required), no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is the undocumented request_id parameter and lack of error/not-found behavior. But given the simplicity and annotation coverage, it's a minimum viable definition.

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. The description mentions 'by public id', which maps to the pipeline_id parameter, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'pipeline_id' string. However, it doesn't explain the request_id parameter at all, and with 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the two 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one pipeline template and its ordered stages by public id'). It clearly identifies what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like yardstick_pipelines_list, but the singular 'one' and 'by public id' make the read-by-id purpose clear.

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: use this when you need a single pipeline template and its stages by public id. It doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like yardstick_pipelines_list (for listing) or yardstick_pipelines_read (if it existed). The context is clear enough for a simple read operation, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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