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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: the tool is paid ($0.002 per call) and its output is either a deterministic order or concrete blockers, which suggests a non‑destructive, repeatable operation. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place: function, intended use/exclusions, and pricing. No redundancy or filler.

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, the description explains the output generally (order or blockers) but not its structure or error format. It also does not explicitly mention that nodes and edges are required, though the schema conveys that. For a graph‑based tool with many similarly named siblings, the description provides enough high‑level context but lacks detail on input validation semantics and output specifics.

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 offers a high‑level interpretation ('workflow dependencies' for nodes/edges, 'execution constraints' for cost/latency limits) but does not map each parameter explicitly. Parameter names are somewhat self‑explanatory, but the description adds only partial value beyond the raw 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 states a specific verb ('Validates') and resource ('caller-supplied workflow dependencies and execution constraints'), and clarifies the output ('deterministic execution order or concrete blockers'). It also explicitly excludes unrelated domains (legal, identity, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools in other categories.

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 a clear intended use ('execution safety / settlement failure') and strong when-not guidance (not for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication). However, it does not differentiate between the many execution_safety_orchestration_* siblings or other execution-safety tools (e.g., control planes, policy engines, preflights), leaving the agent to infer which specific orchestration variant to call.

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