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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns a deterministic execution order or concrete blockers, and notes it is a paid resource with a specific price. No contradiction with annotations; these additions are useful behavioral context.

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 two sentences plus a cost note, front-loading the core function and keeping the exclusions and price brief. It is efficient and well-structured, though it could include a brief parameter mention without losing conciseness.

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?

For a tool that validates graph dependencies with constraints (nodes, edges, max_total_cost, max_total_latency_ms), the description is minimal. It does not explain the input format, output structure, or provide examples. It also does not differentiate from the many sibling control-plane tools beyond the vague 'selection routing' phrase, leaving the agent under-informed about how to invoke it 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%, so the schema provides no descriptions. The description does not explain any of the four parameters (nodes, edges, max_total_cost, max_total_latency_ms), only vaguely referring to 'workflow dependencies and execution constraints'. The agent must infer meaning from names and types alone, which is inadequate for a complex graph input.

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 states a specific verb ('validates') and resource ('workflow dependencies and execution constraints'), and specifies the outcome ('deterministic execution order or concrete blockers'). It also explicitly excludes legal, identity, and other domains, which helps differentiate from sibling tools. However, the phrase 'result unverifiable' is vague and could confuse an agent.

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 an intended use case ('selection routing') and explicit exclusions ('Do not use for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication'). It does not name alternative sibling tools or describe conditions for choosing this over them, so guidance is present but incomplete.

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