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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the run would exit at startup if styles are missing on every image, package-dependent decks automatically route to lammps-full, and nothing is billed. This goes well beyond the annotation hints and gives the agent a concrete model of what happens.

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 information-dense sentence with a front-loaded purpose ('Dry run of the check submit_job performs') and a clear list of outputs. Every clause earns its place, including the safety guarantee and routing behavior, with no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description serves as the output contract by enumerating the four decision-relevant results: missing styles, CPU-only styles, GPU usage, and the runner image. It also covers side effects and routing implications, making it complete for an agent to decide when to call the tool and what to do with the result.

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 both parameters are already well documented: files is the deck contents map and input is the relative path to the input script. The description adds context about what the deck is used for but does not add new parameter-level syntax or format details, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 operation—a preflight dry run on a deck—and enumerates the exact questions it answers: missing styles, CPU-only styles, GPU usage, and routed runner image. It also distinguishes itself from submit_job by explicitly labeling itself as the dry run of the check submit_job performs.

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 title and phrase 'before spending' plus 'Nothing is created or billed' clearly establish when to use this tool: as a safe precursor to submit_job. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternatives, but the comparison to submit_job and the cost-safety framing make the intended usage clear.

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