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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it defaults to every entry in list_current_quantum_computers when hardwareIds is omitted, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. It does not describe output format or error behavior, but with annotations covering safety, this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a key default. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema 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?

The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain more about return values and ranking semantics. It clearly conveys the batch comparison use case and default behavior, but leaves open what the response looks like (e.g., expectation values, ordering). This is a noticeable gap for an agent needing to consume the result.

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 50%, so the description has some responsibility. It explicitly explains the hardwareIds omission default, which is a useful semantic. However, it does not clarify the meaning of the required parameters numQubits and compDepth beyond their names, and the schema already covers several parameters. The added value is modest but not negligible.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Run the same circuit against multiple current SOTA hardware entries in one call' and clearly identifies the resource (hardware scenarios). It distinguishes itself from compute_expectation by framing the tool as a batching comparison mechanism, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool: to rank platforms without N sequential compute_expectation calls, naming compute_expectation as the alternative. It also notes the default behavior when hardwareIds is omitted. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when only one hardware is needed' exclusion, so it falls just short of a 5.

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