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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the key behavioral context that 'Shadow activity is not live execution,' which clarifies the nature of the data and prevents confusion with execution-status tools. This goes beyond the annotations, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence stating the purpose, followed by a brief, relevant clarification. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what is returned (latest public shadow-planning status) and clarifies the key distinction from live execution. The return format is not detailed, but that's a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% of them. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, which is met here.

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 clearly states the verb ('Return') and the specific resource ('latest public shadow-planning status'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the sibling gaip_get_* tools by focusing on shadow-planning status, and the clarification that it's not live execution further differentiates it from execution-related tools.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need shadow-planning status) and clarifies what it is not (live execution), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or give conditions for choosing another tool. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, leaving some inference to the agent.

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