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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it is a paid resource with specific pricing ($0.002 USD per call), which is crucial for cost-sensitive agents. It also discloses that it returns a deterministic execution order or blockers, which is beyond the 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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The exclusion list is short and actionable, and the pricing note is essential and placed last. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 the complexity (graph-based input with nodes and edges) and the lack of output schema, the description provides essential context: what it validates, what it returns, and its cost. However, it could elaborate on edge cases (e.g., cyclic dependencies, node eligibility) or return format, but the description is adequate for an agent to decide whether to call 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. While it doesn't detail each parameter, it explains the overall purpose ('Validates caller-supplied workflow dependencies and execution constraints'), which implies that nodes and edges represent workflow dependencies and constraints. The description helps understand the domain, but it doesn't explicitly map to parameters. Given zero coverage, this is a relatively strong effort.

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 specific verb ('Validates'), the resource ('caller-supplied workflow dependencies and execution constraints'), and the outcome ('returning a deterministic execution order or concrete blockers'). It distinguishes itself from sibling verification and policy engine tools by focusing on validation and execution ordering.

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 explicitly states what it is intended for ('trust identity permission / execution risk') and what it should NOT be used for ('Do not use for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication'). It doesn't name specific alternatives, but the exclusions are clear, though it could be improved by mentioning sibling tools.

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