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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait that it is a read-only operation that does not record a judgment. However, it does not describe authentication requirements, rate limits, behavior when no verdict exists, or the return format.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to stating the operation and its non-recording nature.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must supply more context. It leaves out return-value details, no-verdict behavior, and parameter meanings, making it too sparse for reliable invocation beyond the simplest case.

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?

The description mentions run/source/domain, but only by repeating the parameter names from the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, it does not explain value formats, valid source values, or that domain is optional, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema 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 states a specific read operation and resource: reading the current verdict for a run/source/domain. It also distinguishes itself from futility_judge by clarifying that it does not record a judgment.

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 'without recording a judgment' implies this is the read-only alternative to futility_judge, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Prerequisites and edge cases are not addressed.

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