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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds important extra behavior: it doesn't run the agent, returns problems found (with empty meaning ready), and checks model allow-listing. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify side effects and output semantics.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the key purpose (pre-flight validation) and immediately list the checks and return semantics. No filler or redundant wording.

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 single-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description completely covers scope, side effects, return values, and what makes it suitable for pre-flight checks. The annotations carry the safety profile, and the description covers everything else needed to invoke it correctly.

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 the single parameter agent_id has a useful description. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance, but none is needed; the schema fully documents this required field.

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 identifies the tool as a pre-flight validation for agent drafts, listing each check it performs (workflow-graph validity, tool resolution, model allow-list). While sibling tools like probe_agent exist, this description distinguishes it by explicitly stating it does not run the draft.

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 phrase 'Pre-flight a draft without running it' implies use before execution/deployment, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools (e.g., probe_agent) or state when NOT to use this tool in favor of another. The guidance is adequate but mostly inferred rather than explicit.

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