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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the special PRE_REGISTERED state behavior: returns state PRE_REGISTERED, measured false, lock and frozen files, and no result because nothing has been measured. This goes well beyond a simple 'get' description, though it does not mention errors, permissions, or pagination.

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 dense but efficient: the main content is stated first, followed by a precise edge-case explanation. Every sentence adds value, and the special PRE_REGISTERED behavior is clearly separated without unnecessary prose.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It names the return schema, lists expected result components, and covers the pre-registered edge case. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret its response.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter run_id, including an example format. The description adds the context that it identifies 'one run' and connects to list_categories, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond 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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a clear resource ('canonical result bundle of one run'), and enumerates the contents (protocol lock hash, provenance, reproduce command, per-participant outcomes). It also names the schema 'result.v1', making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_results.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to fetch the canonical result bundle for a single run, identified by run_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'one run' scope and reference to list_categories for run_id provide sufficient context.

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