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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: results are limited to active prospects and to those visible to the current principal. It does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or response shape, but the core behavioral traits are communicated.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It names the resource, scope, and visibility constraint efficiently, earning its place without redundancy.

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 list tool with four parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It lacks any mention of pagination (starting_after, limit), owner filtering (owner_user_id), request correlation (request_id), or what the response contains. The annotations cover safety, but the practical calling context is incomplete.

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 provides no explanation for any of the four parameters (limit, request_id, owner_user_id, starting_after). With no structured descriptions, the description is responsible for clarifying these, but it names none of them, leaving an agent to guess at pagination, filtering, and idempotency semantics.

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 clearly states the verb (List), the resource (Talent CRM prospects), and the scope (active, visible to the current principal). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like yardstick_people_list and yardstick_applications_list because it names the exact entity type and the filtering context.

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 phrase 'List active Talent CRM prospects visible to the current principal' implies when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs the current principal's visible active prospects. However, it gives no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or guidance on when to choose this over related tools such as yardstick_prospects_read or yardstick_prospect_activities_list.

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