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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, it adds real behavioral context: no judgment is executed, nothing is posted, and the call is cheap and free. Some of this is redundant with readOnlyHint ('Read-only', 'never posts anything'), which keeps it out of the top band, but the cost and no-judgment disclosures are genuinely new information an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the total length is short. It loses a point for redundancy — 'Read-only', 'runs no judgment', and 'It never posts anything' restate the same no-side-effect claim three times, and the one-word fragment 'Free.' reads as an afterthought.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so by listing the plan, the recorded work, and the drift verdict. It never characterizes the shape or size of that payload (e.g. how 'work recorded' is aggregated), which is a minor gap for a tool whose return value is its entire point.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'project' parameter already documents accepted forms (name, domain, owner/repo), case-insensitive matching, and the unresolved-name fallback. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 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 uses a concrete verb (get) on a concrete resource (plan status for a project) and then enumerates the three things it returns: current plan, work recorded since the plan was set, and the latest drift verdict. That enumeration distinguishes it cleanly from check_drift and from record_work/log_update, which write rather than read state.

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 names an explicit alternative and the condition for choosing this tool over it: 'use it to pull current state without re-running check_drift.' The framing 'runs no judgment' makes clear when the agent should escalate to check_drift instead, so both branches of the decision are covered.

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