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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds determinism, technical scope, and cost transparency ($0.002 per call). It also describes the outcome (identifying safe/blocked steps). No contradiction with annotations; it enhances them.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, scope, usage, and exclusions/cost. The most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description covers safety scope and usage well, but lacks the input structure for the steps array and does not describe the output format. Without an output schema, the agent does not know what response to expect. This is a significant gap for a tool that takes an underspecified array parameter.

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?

The only parameter 'steps' is an array with 0% schema description coverage. The description refers to an 'agent action plan' and 'multi-step agent action' but never specifies the structure or fields of each step. An agent cannot confidently construct valid input without additional knowledge of what a step should contain.

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 a specific verb (preflight) and resource (agent action plan), and lists concrete hazard categories it checks (irreversible side effects, idempotency, rollback gaps, retry combinations, step-order). It distinguishes from siblings by being a preflight and scoping to technical safety only, so an agent can tell it apart from verification, control plane, or orchestration 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?

Explicitly states when to use (before executing a multi-step agent action) and what it determines (safe vs. blocked steps). It also provides a clear 'do not use' list (unrelated general knowledge or unsupported legal/identity/sanctions/regulatory adjudication). This positive and negative guidance is strong for routing.

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