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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns either a deterministic execution order or concrete blockers, and it discloses that it is a paid resource with a specific x402 price. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core behavior, the second gives exclusion scope, and the third discloses cost. The description is front-loaded with the most actionable information and has no filler or repetition.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and many ambiguous siblings, the description is adequate but has clear gaps: parameter roles are not explained, this control plane is not distinguished from its sibling control plane, and the return shape beyond 'order or blockers' is absent. The annotations mitigate safety concerns, but the description alone is not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it only vaguely references 'workflow dependencies and execution constraints.' It does not clarify that nodes/edges are required, what cost, latency_ms, and enabled mean, or how max_total_cost and max_total_latency_ms constrain execution. Parameter semantics are insufficiently explained.

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 states a specific function: validating caller-supplied workflow dependencies and execution constraints and returning a deterministic execution order or concrete blockers. It clearly communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate this control plane from the many similarly named execution_safety siblings (e.g., execution_safety_control_plane_63e1c9dc).

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 description gives an explicit intended use ('execution safety / trust unknown') and explicit non-uses ('Do not use for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication'). However, it names no alternative sibling tools or conditions for choosing among the other execution_safety_* variants, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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