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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the evidence is local-software-only, bounded to 3 verification qubits and 65536 source bytes, and it returns warnings plus normalized source. It stops short of explaining the price/idempotency interplay implied by the schema.

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?

Four labeled fragments (Problem/Input/Result/Limits) front-load the purpose and scope with zero filler. Every clause earns its place and the limits are surfaced up front.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return values need not be detailed again, and the description adequately previews them. However, for a tool with 4 required params, nested objects, and 0% schema coverage, the near-total silence on parameters and on sibling differentiation leaves meaningful gaps.

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 0% on 4 required parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. It says 'JSON with source', but the required top-level fields (schema_version, idempotency_key, max_total_price) are never mentioned, and 'source' is actually a nested field inside 'request'. The wrapper request shape is left undocumented.

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 specific verbs and resource ('Validate, compile, and report bounded assurance evidence for OpenQASM 3'), so an agent knows it produces an assurance report from QASM 3 input. It does not, however, distinguish this from closely related siblings like quantum_openqasm3_preflight_v1 or check_quantum_circuit, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative guidance. The 'Limits' line scopes the tool (local evidence, 3 qubits, 64KiB) but never says when an agent should pick this over preflight, check, or repair tools. Usage is only weakly implied by the 'assurance report' framing.

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