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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: deterministic ordering, concrete blockers, and paid resource cost ($0.002/call). It does not contradict 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 front-loaded: purpose first, then scope exclusions, then cost. Every sentence provides decision-relevant information with no 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?

Without an output schema and with no parameter-level documentation, the description leaves critical gaps: what exactly constitutes a node/edge, how constraints are expressed, and what 'concrete blockers' look like in the response. High-level intent is clear, but an agent would be guessing at input format details.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carried the burden of explaining nodes, edges, max_total_cost, and max_total_latency_ms. It only gestures at 'workflow dependencies and execution constraints' without mapping those to the actual parameters or explaining the meaning of node fields like enabled, cost, and latency_ms.

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 ('Validates') and resource ('caller-supplied workflow dependencies and execution constraints') with a concrete outcome ('deterministic execution order or concrete blockers'). This is a strong purpose statement, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similarly named sibling tools like selection_routing_control_plane_85ca523f or workflow_dependency_validator.

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 an explicit intended use ('selection routing / trust unknown') and clear exclusions ('Do not use for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication'). It lacks explicit alternative tool names, so full 5 is not warranted.

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