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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it discloses important behaviors: exact equality (no tolerance), m bound, and rejection of floats. It does not say what happens on pass/failure, whether the operation is side-effect-free, or error behavior, leaving part of the behavioral profile implicit.

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 four short, front-loaded statements with no filler. Every fragment adds information: identity, acceptance condition, bound, and input restriction.

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 simple verifier the core criterion is covered, but with no output schema the description does not state the return/result semantics or behavior on invalid/missing inputs. Also, the schema lists all parameters as optional while the description implies all three are needed, which could confuse an agent.

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 define the parameters; it does so via the relation phase = k/2^m and the m<=8 constraint, giving meaning to all three fields. It leaves minor format details (e.g., how strings encode k/m) to inference.

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 a QPE verification check and gives the exact acceptance predicate (phase must equal k/2^m exactly), so an agent can tell what is being decided. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the k/2^m condition and QPE label make this distinct from the other verify_* tools.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'QC-004 QPE' plus the tool name point to QPE phase verification, and constraints like m<=8 and 'Floats refused' guide valid invocations. There is no when-to-use versus alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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