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

Annotations provide read-only, idempotent, non-destructive hints, so description doesn't need to repeat. It adds value by revealing deterministic output, concrete blockers, and paid resource cost ($0.002/call), which are not in annotations. No 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: function, scope/exclusions, cost. Front-loaded main purpose, no fluff, every sentence carries information.

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 no output schema, it explains return behavior (deterministic order or blockers). It includes domain scope and cost. However, it doesn't clarify output structure or edge cases (e.g., what constitutes a blocker), but it's sufficient for an agent to decide to use it.

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% (description doesn't explain any parameter). The description hints at 'workflow dependencies' and 'execution constraints' mapping to nodes/edges and cost/latency limits, but doesn't detail each parameter. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving agents to infer parameter meanings.

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 constraints, returning a deterministic execution order or blockers. It specifies the resource and outcome, and distinguishes it from sibling routers/verifications/policy engines by focusing on validation.

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 gives explicit exclusions (legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, regulatory) and states it's for selection routing, providing context for when to use. However, it doesn't reference specific alternative tools like routers or other control planes, so it's not fully explicit about sibling differentiation.

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