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 value beyond annotations by disclosing that it is a paid resource with a specific price ($0.002 USD per call), which is a behavioral trait not captured in annotations. It also clarifies the output is deterministic or concrete blockers. No contradiction with 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 three sentences and front-loads the core purpose before the exclusions and pricing. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage boundary, and cost disclosure. Slightly dense with the cryptic 'selection routing / result unverifiable' phrase, but overall efficient.

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 with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain more about how the inputs map to the deterministic execution order and what 'concrete blockers' look like. The pricing and exclusion info is helpful, and annotations cover safety/idempotency, but the parameter semantics gap and lack of output format details leave an agent under-informed for a 4-parameter tool with nested arrays.

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 for the four parameters (nodes, edges, max_total_cost, max_total_latency_ms). The description mentions 'workflow dependencies and execution constraints' generically, which loosely maps to nodes/edges and the max cost/latency constraints, but it doesn't explain the meaning of individual parameters, their relationships, or how they affect the deterministic execution order. This is a significant gap given zero schema coverage.

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 ('caller-supplied workflow dependencies and execution constraints'), and specifies the output ('deterministic execution order or concrete blockers'). It distinguishes from siblings by naming the domain ('selection routing') and explicitly excluding legal/identity/sanctions/fraud/contractual/regulatory adjudication. However, it doesn't name a specific sibling alternative, and the phrase 'selection routing / result unverifiable' is somewhat cryptic.

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 clear context: it is intended for selection routing / result unverifiable scenarios, and explicitly says do not use for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication. This provides a when-to-use and when-not-to-use boundary. It doesn't name a specific alternative tool, but the exclusion list is concrete and actionable.

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