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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses an important reliability distinction through the `provenance` field: 'published-circuit' vs 'attested-estimate.' It also instructs consumers not to present attested figures as equivalently sourced, which adds meaningful behavioral nuance beyond what annotations or schema convey.

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 core action, then efficiently adds the hardware-comparison use case and the provenance caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and no content is redundant with the empty schema or annotations.

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 there are no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of defining the return payload. It covers the list contents, the resource-estimate fields, the provenance semantics, and the caveat for attested figures — enough for an agent to call the tool and interpret the result correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify semantically. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately spends no space on params.

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 direct object: 'Return the curated list of example quantum algorithms with published resource estimates.' It states exactly what is in the returned data (qubit count, depth/gate count, source paper URL) and this clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_current_quantum_computers or list_hardware_timings.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Useful for comparing what algorithms need vs. what hardware can deliver.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not contract, but the intended context is evident.

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