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

The description adds several behavioral facts beyond the annotations: the operation is deterministic with no LLM, it makes no external calls, max_nodes is clamped to 5–60, and low ordering_coverage or gaps are honest signals to surface to the user rather than fabricate. These details materially shape invocation and post-processing behavior without contradicting the readOnly/idempotent 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?

Each sentence carries distinct information: purpose, request examples, sibling routing, parameter tuning, determinism, and honesty policy. The use of arrows and starred labels keeps the dense content scannable and front-loads the primary purpose before alternatives and parameter details.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers selection criteria, alternatives, parameter behavior, successful output semantics, failure signals, and safety characteristics, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to call the tool.

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?

Although the schema already covers both parameters at 100%, the description meaningfully extends the max_nodes semantics: it is clamped to 5–60, defaults to40, wider collection can lower ordering_coverage, and the recommended strategy is to run with defaults first and inspect gaps before raising it. This turns a bare schema field into usable guidance.

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 names a specific verb+resource: it constructs a work sequence by collecting related process nodes and topologically sorting them via enables/requires edges into an ordered step flow. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming k_snippets, path_between, traverse, and compare as the alternatives for different request types.

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 states precisely when to call: for sequence/scenario requests such as 'construction order from foundation to 3rd floor' or 'temporary works procedure'. It also gives explicit exclusions by naming the sibling tools that should be used for facts, point-to-point paths, neighbor traversal, and comparisons, so an agent gets clear routing.

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