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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction exists. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the response being self-describing with formulas, assumptions, caveats, glossary, SOTA hardware, and historic series with source URLs.

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?

Three sentences deliver the tool's purpose, key inputs and outputs, response characteristics, and sibling alternatives with no filler. The structure is front-loaded and every sentence contributes necessary decision-making 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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers inputs, outputs, response framing, and alternatives well despite the absence of an output schema. It could be slightly more explicit about parameter selection rules such as hardwareId vs qubitErrorRate, but the schema descriptions already handle that gap.

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 description maps the core input variables to their roles: '2-qubit error rate p, qubit count n, depth d' and mentions 'optional surface-code or qLDPC overhead.' This compensates for the 50% schema description coverage by clarifying the mathematical meaning of numQubits and compDepth, though it does not elaborate on all optional parameters like distanceSurfaceCode or useErrorCorrection.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Given a quantum circuit ..., compute the effective error rate, success probability, and optional surface-code or qLDPC overhead.' It clearly names what the tool computes and is explicitly differentiated from siblings by directing inverse questions to compute_required_error_rate and multi-platform ranking to compare_hardware_scenarios.

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 tool's main use is stated as processing circuit parameters, and it explicitly gives alternatives for other intents: 'For the inverse ... use compute_required_error_rate; to rank multiple platforms in one call use compare_hardware_scenarios.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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