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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further with operational context: 32 KB payload cap, 60 RPM rate limit, ?demo=true, L402 pricing (80 sats), and HTTP 400 on invalid input. It does not state whether the payment path or demo mode changes results, a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage routing, then operational constraints in a single dense sentence. It is information-packed and every clause earns its place, though the trailing parenthetical cramming rate limit, payload size, payment, and error codes is a bit dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, routing, cost/auth, and limits. The one gap is the contradictory default for 'time_unit', which leaves an agent unsure of the effective default when the field is omitted.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description actively misleads: it says 'time_unit' defaults to 'minutes' while the schema states it 'defaults to hours when omitted.' That is a direct conflict on the default value, which is exactly the kind of detail an agent would rely on when omitting the parameter.

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 (solves) plus resource (task dependency DAG) and enumerates the concrete outputs (ES/EF/LS/LF, float, makespan, critical path). It explicitly names the sibling it is not (audit_module_dependency_cycles), so an agent can separate the two without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ('scheduling dependent engineering milestones or workflow steps to find the minimum project duration and zero-slack bottleneck path') and an explicit when-not with the named alternative for durationless import/blast-radius analysis. Nothing is left to inference.

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