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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds real value beyond them by disclosing the cost model (free) and the shape of the response: per-venue states, receipt ids, live URLs, and PREPARED artifacts with publish instructions.

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 front-loaded sentence plus a tight parenthetical, with zero filler. The state enumeration is dense but earns its place because there is no output schema to carry it.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the state vocabulary and artifact fields. A little more detail on what a BLOCKED or PREPARED entry implies for follow-up action would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description correctly ties run_id to its source ("returned by omnilist_run"). It says nothing about the format parameter or its json/markdown enum, so it adds only marginal meaning over the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Fetch the per-venue report of an omnilist_run") plus the key it is fetched by (run_id), and enumerates the payload it returns. That clearly separates it from the sibling omnilist_run, which produces the run_id this tool consumes.

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?

Usage context is clear: this is the read-back step after omnilist_run, and "free read-back" signals no billing risk. It does not state an explicit when-not condition or name a post-run alternative, so it falls short of the top tier.

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