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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does mention that floats are refused and constrains table length and class values, but it does not describe what the tool actually does, whether it is read-only, what invalid inputs produce, or what the verification outcome means.

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 description is short and front-loaded, with each sentence contributing a distinct constraint. It earns its compactness, though 'QC-006' is cryptic without external context and the telegraphic style omits a clear functional statement.

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?

For a quantum verification tool with no annotations, no output schema, and empty parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It explains input domains but not the verification criterion, the expected result, error behavior, or how to distinguish this from closely related verify_* siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful constraints: table is a 0/1 value of length 2 or 4, class is constant or balanced, and floats are refused. This is more than the bare schema provides, though the exact string format of 'table' is still somewhat ambiguous.

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 identifies the tool as 'QC-006 Deutsch-Jozsa' and names the relevant inputs (table, class), so an agent can infer this verifies a Deutsch-Jozsa classification. However, it never states an explicit action such as 'verify that the table matches the given class' or what result is produced, relying heavily on the tool name.

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?

The algorithm name and parameter constraints imply when this tool is relevant, and 'Floats refused' gives some input guidance. But there is no explicit statement about when to use this over the many sibling quantum verification tools, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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