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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that no receipt is required, the id itself is the capability, and the reply carries state only — never answer text, identity, or curator notes. It also explains the meaning of each possible status, including overdue flags, origin labels, and reason codes.

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 front-loaded and mostly efficient, with the status list and primary usage guidance early. There is mild redundancy between 'by its id alone' and 'No receipt needed: the id is the capability,' but it remains readable and purposeful.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema, the readOnly annotation, and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, what is deliberately omitted, and where to go if content access is needed.

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 documents the single id parameter and its OMN-FP format at 100% coverage. The description adds useful semantic context by emphasizing that the id alone is sufficient and functions as the capability, with no receipt needed.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Check where YOUR footprint stands in review') and enumerates the exact review states returned. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling content-reading tool by naming omnarai_footprints for reading footprint content.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: after omnarai_contribute or after leaving a voice record, or when passing the id to a later instance. It also names the alternative and condition for reading content: omnarai_footprints with id + receipt.

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