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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns a deterministic execution order or blockers, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it doesn't discuss auth, rate limits, or any side effects beyond the read-only nature. It doesn't contradict 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 two sentences plus a pricing note, with the core purpose front-loaded. It is efficient and avoids fluff, but the lack of parameter detail is a trade-off. The structure is logical and skimmable.

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 zero parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for a tool that takes a graph of nodes and edges with constraints. It explains the high-level purpose but not the input structure, return format, or edge cases. An agent would need to inspect the schema deeply, which is not ideal.

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. It mentions 'workflow dependencies and execution constraints' but does not explain how nodes, edges, max_total_cost, or max_total_latency_ms map to those concepts. Without any parameter-level detail, an agent cannot infer the meaning of individual fields beyond their schema types.

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 caller-supplied workflow dependencies and execution constraints and returns a deterministic execution order or blockers. It specifies the intended domain ('trust identity permission / trust unknown'), which differentiates it from other control planes in the sibling list, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 ('Do not use for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication') and mentions it is a paid resource with a price, which informs cost decisions. It implies the tool is for trust/permission scenarios but doesn't compare directly to sibling control planes.

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