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

Annotations already cover idempotency and destructiveness. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a paid resource with a concrete price, and the result is deterministic. It does not explain any side effects despite readOnlyHint being false, but the annotations carry that signal, so the description is not misleading.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and pricing/exclusions placed after. The phrase 'Intended for execution safety / cannot select' is somewhat awkward and redundant, but overall the description is compact and well-ordered.

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 moderately complex tool with no output schema, the description explains the high-level purpose, exclusions, and cost. It does not specify how the returned blockers or execution order are structured, but the schema and the 'deterministic execution order or concrete blockers' phrase provide enough orientation for invocation.

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. It maps 'dependencies' to edges and 'execution constraints' to max_total_cost/max_total_latency_ms, but it does not explain node-level fields like cost, enabled, or latency_ms, nor how blockers are represented. Partial compensation, not full.

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 uses a specific verb ('validates') and resource ('caller-supplied workflow dependencies and execution constraints'), and states the output ('deterministic execution order or concrete blockers'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling execution_safety_orchestration_* variants, and the phrase 'Intended for execution safety / cannot select' is vague.

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?

It provides explicit negative guidance ('Do not use for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication') and frames the intended domain ('execution safety'). It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool for those exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to avoid misuse.

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