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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is a paid resource with a specific price ($0.002 USD per call), and it returns either a deterministic execution order or concrete blockers. The 'cannot select' phrase is slightly cryptic but does convey a behavioral constraint.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, exclusions follow, and the pricing note is a single compact clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only, idempotent validation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, exclusions, and cost. It does not explain the exact meaning of the four parameters or the shape of the returned blockers/order, but the annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameter structure. The main gap is parameter semantics, which is already reflected in that dimension.

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 carries the burden for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'workflow dependencies and execution constraints' which loosely maps to nodes/edges and max_total_cost/max_total_latency_ms, but it does not explain the semantics of individual parameters (e.g., what 'cost' or 'enabled' mean, how edges are interpreted). This is a baseline 3: the description gives a general sense but does not fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 verb ('validates') and resource ('caller-supplied workflow dependencies and execution constraints'), and specifies the output ('deterministic execution order or concrete blockers'). It also explicitly scopes the tool to 'execution safety / cannot select' and lists excluded domains, which distinguishes it from the many sibling policy/verification/control-plane tools.

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 explicitly says 'Intended for execution safety / cannot select' and 'Do not use for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling list shows many domain-specific alternatives (e.g., trust_identity_permission_*, procurement_policy_*) that the exclusion list helps disambiguate against.

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