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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds useful cost context ("Free") and return contents (signatures, settlement, validity check), but does not mention error behavior for invalid heights or other operational constraints.

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 short and front-loads the core noun phrase, with "Free" as a useful separate cost signal. It avoids waste, though the missing action verb makes the structure less immediately actionable.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description is adequate: the schema documents height and annotations cover read-only behavior. Still, with no output schema, it could more explicitly state that it returns a block and what callers should expect for invalid heights.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage and documents the single height parameter including the genesis case. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as a single quantum-sealed block and lists what it contains, which helps distinguish it from siblings like qledger_entry_proof or qledger_verify_chain. However, it never states the action explicitly (e.g., retrieve/fetch a block at a given height), so the purpose is inferable rather than clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus qledger_entry_proof, qledger_verify_chain, qledger_status, or qledger_seal. "Free" is a pricing note, not a usage condition or alternative-selection rule.

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