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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: exact rationals are required, sqrt(n) is not permitted, and floats are refused. However, it says nothing about what the tool returns, how failures are reported, or whether any state changes occur.

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 very brief and each fragment adds information: the resource identifier, the formula, allowed n values, and the float rejection rule. It could include the verb 'verify' early for clarity, but overall it is tightly structured with no filler.

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 an unannotated verification tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It tells the agent what constraints are being checked but not what a successful or failed verification looks like, what the tool returns, or how the inputs should be supplied. Sibling tools and schema provide no compensating detail.

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 the parameter names k, n, and phases are otherwise bare strings. The description partially compensates by defining the phase formula and constraining n to {2,4,8}, plus rejecting floats. It still does not specify formats for the three string parameters or how phases should be encoded.

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 resource ('QC-003 QFT phase table') and the core invariant being checked, phase[j]=(j*k)/n as exact rationals. This is specific enough to distinguish it from the many sibling verify_* tools, though it never explicitly uses a verb like 'verifies' or 'checks'.

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 description gives acceptance constraints (n in {2,4,8}, no sqrt(n), no floats) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as verify_qpe_phase or verify_phase_kickback. An agent must infer the intended use case.

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