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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false — a slightly contradictory safety profile the description doesn't address (why is it non-read-only if it's an inspection?). The 'Limits' sentence adds useful context (local evidence only, 65536 bytes), partially compensating.

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?

Front-loaded Problem/Input/Result/Limits structure is efficient and scannable. Minor waste in the vague 'these supported operations' phrasing.

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?

Four required params at 0% schema coverage, nested objects, and a non-obvious idempotency/pricing envelope go unexplained. Even with an output schema covering the result, the input contract is effectively undocumented.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only loosely maps ('reference, candidate, phase context') to the actual request object, and says nothing about schema_version, idempotency_key, or max_total_price — three of four required 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?

States a diagnosis task (phase, rotation, ordering, convention difference) but is vague about the specific resource and doesn't clearly differentiate from the close siblings diagnose_quantum_phase and quantum_two_qubit_local_equivalence_v1. 'these supported operations' is an unresolved reference.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the near-identical sibling diagnose_quantum_phase. The agent has no basis for choosing this tool over that one.

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