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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Floats refused' is a useful piece of input-validation behavior, but there is no disclosure of what 'verify' produces, whether it errors on mismatched class/table, permissions, or any return semantics.

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?

Three short, front-loaded fragments with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the telegraphic 'QC-006' token spends a slot without adding meaning for an agent.

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 verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what verification entails and what a result means. Instead it only constrains inputs, leaving the tool's actual behavior and return value unexplained.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's '0/1 of length 2 or 4' and 'constant or balanced' largely restate the schema rather than adding format or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 name 'verify_deutsch_jozsa' plus 'QC-006 Deutsch-Jozsa' identifies the resource, and the body clarifies it deals with constant/balanced truth tables. However, the description never states the action in a verb form (verify/check/classify), and 'QC-006' is an opaque code. It does not distinguish this from the many sibling verifiers (verify_simon, verify_bernstein_vazirani) beyond the algorithm 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the near-identical sibling verifiers, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the algorithm name and input constraints.

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