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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: the identifier is a 'public id', which distinguishes from internal ids. It does not describe return format or any side effects, but for a simple read operation with these 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?

A single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and it is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 operation with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but leaves a few gaps: it does not mention what the response contains (the prospect object) or any authentication requirements, though these may be assumed. Given the simplicity and the annotations, it is close to complete but not fully detailed.

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 for both parameters. It clarifies that prospect_id is a 'public id', which is valuable, but it provides no information about request_id (optional, presumably a request correlation id). With 0% coverage, the description should explain all parameters; it covers only one, so it is incomplete.

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'), a specific resource ('prospect'), and a specific scope ('one ... by public id'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like yardstick_prospects_list (which reads many) and yardstick_prospects_create (which creates).

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 when to use this tool: when you have a specific public id and need a single prospect. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear from the verb and resource. It could benefit from an explicit pointer to list/create/update tools, but it is not misleading.

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