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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write, so safety is covered. The description adds that a quote is reserved and the job is bounded/single, but says nothing about idempotency-key behavior, failure/retry outcomes, or what a reservation costs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on underspecification for a fairly complex anyOf schema.

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 schema is a three-variant anyOf with version consts (v1/v2) and a constrained capability_id, and an output schema exists so returns are covered. However, the description never acknowledges these variants or the required fields, leaving the agent to discover the version/capability coupling purely from the schema.

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 reported as 100%, so the schema is expected to carry parameter meaning and the baseline is 3. The description adds no semantics for quote_id, capability_id, schema_version variants, or idempotency_key beyond what the structured fields imply.

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?

States a specific verb (submit) and resource (Wave job), with scoping qualifiers ('one bounded catalog-approved'). The 'Wave' qualifier implicitly separates it from submit_quantum_job, though the description never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

'Reserve an exact quote' and 'catalog-approved' imply a prerequisite workflow (a quote must exist before submission), but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and never contrasts with quote_job or submit_quantum_job. Usage is only inferable.

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