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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: it is a dated snapshot, not a live read, and the report/feedback channel is explicitly free with no individual reply. It does not address pagination or snapshot age, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core catalogue sentence is front-loaded and earns its place, but the trailing feedback paragraph (POST /feedback, no account, daily analysis, no individual reply) is tangential to invoking this tool and dilutes the payload. The description is longer than it needs to be for a 2-parameter read.

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 two-filter read with full schema coverage and safety annotations, an agent has nearly everything it needs. The one gap is the snapshot's recency, which matters because the tool is explicitly stale, and there is no output schema to describe the returned columns beyond the prose enumeration.

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% and both filters are already documented in the schema, including the lane enum values. The description does not add syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (the lane table of every evaluated venue) and enumerates exactly what columns it carries: lane, the venue's own fee, the verification catalogue, and death reasons. It also positions itself against the sibling placement_order explicitly ('the list placement_order works from'), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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 makes the use case clear ('published before you pay so you can decide whether it is worth anything to you') and flags itself as a dated snapshot rather than a live read, which is a usage-relevant caveat. It does not name an alternative read path for live state, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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