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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing that cycles cause rejection rather than partial output. It does not say what the rejection looks like (error vs. partial result), what the bound on 'bounded' actually is, or what the sorted result contains. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is solid but incomplete.

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?

One front-loaded clause with zero filler: verb, object, and failure behavior arrive immediately. It is arguably too terse given the empty item schema, but nothing in it is wasted or buried.

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, no annotation coverage of semantics, and a 0%-documented array parameter, the description must carry the load on item shape, result format, and the bound. It covers only the operation and cycle rejection, so an agent cannot confidently construct `tasks` elements or interpret the output from this definition alone.

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 0% for the single `tasks` array, and the schema gives no item shape at all. The description adds only that the elements are agent tasks and that the set must be bounded, leaving the element fields and the meaning of 'bounded' undocumented in both places. That is thin compensation for a completely bare schema.

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 gives a specific verb and output shape ('topologically sort') plus the resource ('a bounded set of agent tasks') and an explicit failure mode ('reject cycles'), which lets an agent tell this apart from generic ordering or DAG-inspection siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling, so it falls just under a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as the dependency-DAG or dependency-availability siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only scoping signal is the word 'bounded', which constrains input size without telling the agent when the tool applies.

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