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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the output types (missing, duplicate, out-of-order, orphan, coverage metrics) and the pricing/cost ($0.002 per call). No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the primary action and outcome come first, followed by usage scope, exclusions, and pricing. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, and it fits in a few sentences without being verbose.

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, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (missing, duplicate, out-of-order, orphan events, coverage metrics). It also covers usage scope, exclusions, and cost. An agent has all necessary information to decide when to call and what to expect from the response.

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 carries the burden. It gives meaning to both parameters: 'expected_steps' is the 'expected step graph' and 'events' are 'caller-supplied execution trace events'. This clarifies their roles beyond the raw names, though it does not detail the array element structure or required format.

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 ('Checks') and resource ('caller-supplied execution trace events against an expected step graph'), and enumerates the exact outputs (missing, duplicate, out-of-order, orphan events, coverage metrics). It distinguishes itself from siblings like failure_classifier by explicitly saying it is 'not merely classify a failure'.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this tool when determine whether an execution trace contains enough technical evidence to reconstruct the expected workflow') and when-not-to-use ('Do not use it for unrelated general knowledge or unsupported legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication'). It also notes the paid nature, setting clear expectations.

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