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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds deterministic output, the notion of concrete blockers, and a per-call x402 price of $0.002 USD, all beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction with the annotations, and the cost disclosure is valuable 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by precise exclusions and pricing. There is no filler; every sentence contributes decision-relevant 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?

With no output schema, the description's promise of 'deterministic execution order or concrete blockers' is useful but does not specify the return shape or failure detail. It also leaves some operational semantics unstated, such as how node-level enabled/latency fields interact with constraints, which matters for a graph-based validation tool with four parameters.

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 carry parameter meaning, but it only maps concepts generally: 'dependencies' suggests edges and 'execution constraints' suggests max_total_cost/max_total_latency_ms. It does not explain the role of node-level fields like enabled, cost, or latency_ms in the overall validation, though the schema property names and constraints are largely self-explanatory.

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 names a specific verb ('Validates'), a clear resource ('caller-supplied workflow dependencies and execution constraints'), and a concrete output ('deterministic execution order or concrete blockers'). It also identifies the intended domain ('selection routing / execution risk') and excludes other adjudication types, though it does not differentiate it from the many sibling selection_routing_control_plane variants.

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 an explicit intended use ('selection routing / execution risk') and strong negative guidance ('Do not use for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication'). It stops short of naming specific alternative sibling tools, but the stated boundaries are sufficient for routing an agent's decision.

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