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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing paid resource pricing ($0.002 per call), deterministic output, and the possibility of concrete blockers. No contradiction with annotations.

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: function, usage boundaries, and cost. Each sentence earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 helpfully states the return type (deterministic execution order or concrete blockers) and pricing. However, it does not explain what constitutes a blocker, how constraints interact, or what the caller should do with the output, leaving some gaps for a 4-parameter tool.

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 only broadly refers to 'workflow dependencies and execution constraints' and does not explain nodes, edges, max_total_cost, or max_total_latency_ms beyond what their names imply.

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 clearly states the tool validates workflow dependencies and execution constraints and returns an execution order or blockers. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate it from the several execution_safety_orchestration and workflow_dependency_validator siblings.

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 is explicit that this is for execution safety and not for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication. This provides strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, though it does not name alternative sibling tools.

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