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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is met. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the exact nature of the return (full chain plus per-prerequisite status) and the accepted ID formats, which an agent needs to interpret results.

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 action and return value, followed by input formats, scope, and usage cue. Four sentences, each carrying distinct information, with no padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fully compensates by describing what is returned (the prerequisite chain with current statuses). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the schema documenting the single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter's format examples ('CIP-0112', '0112', 'PR-203') are already spelled out in the schema. The description largely restates those accepted formats rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Walk the CIP requires: graph') and resource, and precisely defines the output: the chain of prerequisites that must reach Final before the starting proposal is implementable. An agent can distinguish this from get_cip or ecosystem_dependency_graph 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?

Gives a clear when-to-use cue ('planning around a CIP that hasn't shipped yet') and a scope constraint ('Canton governance only'). It stops short of naming an explicit alternative sibling for related dependency questions, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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