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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a paid resource with a specific price, and it returns deterministic results. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

The description is compact: three sentences covering purpose, exclusions, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and avoids filler, though the first sentence is somewhat dense.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description provides the core purpose, exclusions, and pricing but leaves important context under-specified: how blockers are determined, how constraints affect the returned order, and what callers should infer from the open-world annotation. It is adequate, not 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 for the undocumented parameters. It vaguely refers to 'workflow dependencies and execution constraints' but never maps these to nodes, edges, max_total_cost, or max_total_latency_ms, and gives no guidance on how the constraint fields interact with the graph.

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 describes the return value as a deterministic execution order or concrete blockers. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling orchestration tools, so it stops short of 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?

The description gives intended use ('execution safety / permission mismatch') and an explicit do-not-use list for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication. It provides clear context and exclusions, but it does not name alternative tools or describe when to prefer them.

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