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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description usefully adds the evidence boundary ('Local software evidence only') and the 65536-byte request cap, which are not derivable from annotations. However it omits that this is a paid job submission (max_total_price) and says nothing about cost or async job behavior.

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 Problem/Input/Result/Limits labeling is compact, front-loaded, and wastes no sentences. It is slightly terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally efficient.

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 return values needn't be re-explained. But for a job-submitting tool with a price constraint, idempotency key, and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves the invocation contract materially incomplete.

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% across 4 required parameters. The description only hints at 'JSON with stage, error text', which does not even correspond to the top-level parameters (request, schema_version, idempotency_key, max_total_price). Nothing explains the idempotency key format, the fixed price constant, or the schema version.

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 and resource: 'Diagnose why this bounded quantum workflow failed and return supported corrective actions.' It is clear what the tool produces (failure class, evidence terms, corrective actions), but it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling 'diagnose_quantum_workflow'.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite a near-identical sibling ('diagnose_quantum_workflow') that an agent must choose between. The 'Limits' line constrains scope but does not help tool selection.

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