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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses important behavioral traits: it is READ-ONLY, stops at the first unroutable step, reports cumulative fees/durations, and returns binding-constraint feedback. This goes well beyond a minimal safety annotation.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, then covers termination behavior, output feedback, read-only safety, and usage guidance—all in five targeted sentences. No sentence is redundant or filler.

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 tool's complexity, nested parameters, and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, safety, and response structure. It does not enumerate all constraint fields or explicitly compare with sibling tools, but it is still strongly complete.

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?

The schema provides basic descriptions for 'steps' but not 'constraints'. The description adds meaning by explaining that fees and durations accumulate across steps and that error responses include 'bindingConstraint' and 'whatWouldMakeThisWork', which helps the agent understand constraint evaluation and output semantics.

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 an entire multi-step workflow up front, using a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('a WHOLE multi-step workflow'). This directly distinguishes it from per-hop validation tools like robyn_preflight or robyn_quote.

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 says to 'Use this before spending on step one' and positions it as an alternative to validating 'one hop at a time.' It provides clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or exclusions.

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