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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the model is gate-promoted, the live version accompanies the response, and validation caveats are included inline, but it stays vague about what those caveats or confidence signals actually look like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler. The parenthetical jargon ('gate-promoted model') is dense but earns its place by flagging model versioning.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not explain the probability's scale, how the 'caveats inline' manifest, or how results differ from the accountability/leaderboard siblings.

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% with a single well-documented country_code parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or interpretation detail beyond what the schema already provides, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with a clear horizon: '7-day shutdown probability for a country'. The 'KeepItOn-validated' and 'gate-promoted model' qualifiers add specificity about methodology, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_shutdown_risk_accountability, get_shutdown_risk_leaderboard, or get_risk_forecast.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite several sibling tools covering shutdown and risk forecasting. The agent is left to infer that this is the per-country 7-day variant from the name alone.

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