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

Annotations already declare not-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the tool may withhold rather than repair ('repaired or withheld source'), returns an exact edit list plus a post-repair validation verdict, and is limited to local software evidence and 65536 source bytes. It still omits pricing/auth semantics implied by max_total_price and idempotency_key.

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 front-loads purpose and constraints in four short clauses with essentially no filler. It is well sized for the amount of information conveyed.

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 need not be spelled out, but with 0% schema coverage the description should compensate for the opaque request/price/idempotency parameters and does not. For a job-submitting tool with a fixed price ceiling and idempotency contract, the agent lacks the information needed to construct a valid call.

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% and all four required parameters are untyped blobs to the reader. The description names only 'source' and 'allowed repairs' inside the opaque request object, and says nothing about schema_version, idempotency_key, or max_total_price – so most parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 (repair) and resource (bounded OpenQASM 3 program) with a scoping qualifier ('only with the supplied conservative repair policy'). However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling repair_openqasm3, leaving an agent unable to tell the two apart without inspecting both schemas.

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 a constraint ('only with the supplied conservative repair policy') but no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (repair_openqasm3, quantum_openqasm3_preflight_v1, quantum_phase_aware_rewrite_v1). The agent is left to infer the selection criteria entirely.

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