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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context: determinism of the result, the range of outputs (execution order or blockers), and the $0.002 cost per call. No contradictions 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 sentences with no waste: core behavior first, then scope exclusions, then cost. The main verb and object are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 purpose, exclusions, and cost, but for a tool with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, it should explain what nodes/edges representable, what constraints look like, and the shape of the returned order/blockers. The multiple similarly-named control planes also call for a distinguishing note, which is absent.

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, but it only says 'workflow dependencies and execution constraints' without explaining nodes, edges, max_total_cost, or max_total_latency_ms. The mapping is inferable but not stated, leaving parameter meaning largely unresolved.

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 constraintshola and returns a deterministic execution order or blockers, which is a specific verb+resource+outcome. It distinguishes from legal/identity/sanctions tools via exclusions, but does not differentiate among the multiple reliability_quality_control_plane_* 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?

It explicitly states intended use ('reliability quality') and provides a strong negative list ('Do not use for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication'). However, it does not name alternative tools or give specific conditions for choosing this over similar control planes.

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