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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the deterministic nature of the output, the possible result types ('execution order or concrete blockers'), and the fact that it is a paid resource with a specific x402 price. 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: first sentence states purpose and output, second provides domain exclusions, third discloses cost. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

There is no output schema, so the description's mention of 'deterministic execution order or concrete blockers' is the only return-value guidance; it lacks formatting or edge-case semantics such as cycle handling or blocker structure. Pricing and exclusions add useful context, but for a graph-validation tool with 0% schema coverage, more behavioral detail would make it 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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only abstracts them as 'workflow dependencies and execution constraints,' without defining nodes, edges, enabled, cost, latency_ms, or how max_total_cost and max_total_latency_ms are enforced. An agent cannot fully understand parameter behavior from the description alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Validates caller-supplied workflow dependencies and execution constraints, returning a deterministic execution order or concrete blockers.' This clearly states the tool's function and output. It also differentiates from siblings by scoping to reliability quality and explicitly excluding legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, and regulatory use cases.

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 positive context ('Intended for reliability quality') and explicit negative guidance ('Do not use for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication'). It does not name specific alternative sibling tools, and the phrase 'cannot select' is somewhat ambiguous, but the when/when-not guidance is otherwise clear.

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