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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: deterministic output, possibility of concrete blockers, and cost ($0.002 per call). This goes beyond the structured metadata and is consistent with the annotations, adding value without contradiction.

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, each earning its place: purpose, intended use/exclusions, and cost. The core function is front-loaded, and there is no redundancy or padding. The structure is exemplary.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the agent is left guessing about input semantics and the exact shape of the returned execution order or blockers. The description omits details on required graph properties (e.g., DAG vs cyclic), error conditions, and how to interpret results. Given the tool's complexity and paid nature, this is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 does not. It vaguely refers to 'workflow dependencies and execution constraints' but never explains what nodes, edges, cost, or latency mean. The description fails to map its high-level wording to the actual parameters, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names 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 clearly states the tool's function: it validates workflow dependencies and constraints and returns an execution order or blockers. This is specific and distinct from generic phrasing, but it does not differentiate itself from the many similarly-named selection_routing_control_plane_* siblings, so it loses a point for lack of sibling differentiation.

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 provides usage context ('Intended for selection routing / execution risk') and explicit exclusions ('Do not use for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication'), which helps route away from inappropriate domains. However, it does not compare against the other selection_routing_control_plane variants or suggest which sibling to use instead, leaving the agent without clear alternatives.

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