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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns a deterministic execution order or blockers, and discloses the cost ($0.002 per call) and a 'quality unknown' caveat. These details go beyond the annotations without contradicting 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 three sentences, front-loading the primary purpose, then exclusions, then cost. Each sentence contributes essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of the input (a directed graph with cost/latency constraints), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the structure of nodes and edges, the meaning of cost/latency limits, or the format of the returned order/blockers. The agent would need to infer from the bare schema, which has no property descriptions, making the tool hard to use correctly.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of nodes, edges, max_total_cost, or max_total_latency_ms. It only vaguely refers to 'workflow dependencies' and 'execution constraints' without mapping them to the parameters. An agent would have to guess the meaning and structure of the input, which is critical for a graph-based tool.

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's function: validating caller-supplied workflow dependencies and execution constraints, and returning a deterministic execution order or concrete blockers. It also provides explicit exclusions for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, and regulatory adjudication, which distinguishes it from sibling control planes in those domains. The phrase 'Intended for selection routing / quality unknown' adds a specific purpose context.

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 provides a clear context of use (selection routing) and explicit domains where the tool should not be used. However, it does not differentiate among the many selection_routing_control_plane variants or mention alternative tools by name, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific instance. The exclusions are helpful but not exhaustive in guiding tool selection.

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