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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description complements them by disclosing the estimate's limitations: it omits reset/SPAM, mid-circuit measurement, and classical-control latency, and overstates achievable rates. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare annotation flags, though it doesn't describe response/error behavior or edge cases.

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 compact: a formula sentence, a precise interpretation sentence, and a caveat/alternative sentence. It includes no filler and front-loads the purpose before the limitations.

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 pure calculation tool with three fully documented required parameters and no side effects, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly: formula, units, underlying assumptions, and known overstatement. No output schema is present, but the expected return value (QV/second) is clear from the description.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond the schema by explaining how each parameter participates in the model: one native 2Q gate per QV layer and one end-of-circuit measurement. This helps an agent map t2QSeconds and tMeasurementSeconds into the stated formula, though the parameter names and schema descriptions also carry this reasonably well.

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 verb and resource: 'Compute the Quantum Volume Rate (QV/second)' and states the exact formula. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling compute_* tools by naming a unique performance metric and explains what one QV-sized square circuit means.

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 clearly frames the tool as a 'first-order estimate' and explicitly warns that it 'OVERSTATES achievable rate' due to omitted real-world factors. It also points to IBM's CLOPS as a production-throughput alternative, giving a when-not-to-use hint, though it does not explicitly mention sibling compute tools.

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