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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral requirements: relay attribution and unclaimed lines verbatim and keep each place's source link adjacent to its name. These are output-handling obligations the agent would otherwise miss. It stops short of explaining what a token does or how the cursor advances.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded before the handling instructions, with no filler. The awkward 'from position since' phrasing costs a little clarity but nothing is padded.

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 and zero schema descriptions, the description does reveal the shape of the return (attribution lines, unclaimed line, per-place source links), which is real value. But it omits pagination semantics, what 'token' is for, and what constitutes a 'run', leaving an agent under-equipped for anything past a first call.

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 0% and two of the three parameters ('run', 'since') have no type at all. The description only obliquely gestures at 'since' as a position and 'run' as a genesis run; 'token' is never mentioned, and no format or identifier shape is given for any parameter.

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 verb+resource are specific: 'Read the places and activities a genesis run found', which no sibling tool claims. The scope qualifier 'from position since' is vague and 'genesis run' is never grounded, but the agent still knows what class of object is returned.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisite (e.g. needing a run identifier from a genesis start), and no exclusion of related read tools like views_checks or places_verdicts. Pagination resumption is only implied by the phrase 'from position since'.

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