Personally, while I'll read and be nice to stories that are ... rather ... bare in the description department, I prefer stories written as though publishing was honestly a thought that crossed their minds.
In my opinion, the act of posting a story qualifies as publishing it. When you post a story, you are asking others to spend their time and resources reading your work. I'm not quibbling over the definition here--I'm stating that a story should be taken seriously even though it's not typeset on dead trees.
I truly despise "script" stories, namely because they aren't really written as script but just lines of dialogue that assumes you can read the author's mind about what is going on, as the dialogue is rarely helpful. Now, I'll give a favorable review anyway if I can see a wonderful story concept ... but to me, they are ONLY a concept, not a "real" story. And don't get me started on "outlines" ... those have to be the most pointless things ever (no offense to those who post them).
In the words of Larry Niven, one of my three all-time favorite authors and the one who has been the strongest influence on my writing style, "It is a sin to waste the reader's time." I'd also apply that to unfinished stories, another pet peeve of mine. (And, no, not looking at anyone in specific, so let's not go off on a tangent. It's irritated me since I first got on the 'net in '94.)
good description helps set mood as well as move the plot. I could say that Jenny's office was cluttered with stuff ... or I could show the reader what was actually in her office, so that we would know some more about her character. What is better, saying Jenny's walls are covered in Broadway posters -- OR -- saying that Manhattan Melodies was slightly faded but framed on the wall?
In the words of Mark Twain, "Don't say the old lady screamed. Bring her on and let her scream." Paint vivid pictures! Relevant details and sensory data will bring a story to life in the mind if the reader.