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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates the classes of problems detected (missing links, unbounded lines, plan limits), says results are tied to the offending node, mentions a returned link to open the model, and spells out free-plan caps. It does not say whether the check ever persists the model, but the read-only annotations cover that.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns, then the plan limits as a trailing constraint. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 must describe results, and it does: all problems found, grouped by node, plus a model link. It is slightly thin on result format (structured list vs. prose, whether a failed check returns an error or a payload), which matters for a validation tool an agent may need to branch on.

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 the nested schema documents every field in detail, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates the free-plan caps (8 nodes, 3 staff groups, 30 days, 1 run), which the schema already states for days and runs. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Check a QueueSim Cloud model") and defines the resource inline as "a multi-step queueing system built from nodes and staff groups." The phrase "without running it" functionally separates it from the run_queue_model sibling, so an agent can tell validation from execution without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool validates models, so it is obviously for pre-run checks, but the description never says "use this before run_queue_model" or "use queue_model_guide first to learn the format." No exclusions or prerequisites are given despite several closely related siblings.

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