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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does explain the core check ('bob = alice XOR corrections') and an input constraint ('Floats refused'), which is meaningful. However, it does not say whether the tool has side effects, what it returns, or how it reports success/failure.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded, with each sentence contributing distinct information: protocol context, the verification relation, and an input restriction. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has three parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the return value, expected bitstring format, or error behavior. It also lacks usage context beyond the formula. The core equation is present, but an agent would likely need additional information to call it reliably.

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 provide parameter meaning. The formula 'bob = alice XOR corrections' assigns roles to all three parameters and clarifies their relationship, and 'on 2 bits' adds a size constraint. It does not fully specify the expected string encoding, but it compensates substantially for the empty schema descriptions.

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 names the specific resource ('QC-016 Teleport reconstruction') and gives the verification criterion ('bob = alice XOR corrections on 2 bits'), which clearly identifies the tool as a teleport verification tool. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling verify_* tools by focusing on teleportation, though the 'QC-016' code is somewhat opaque and the verb is only implied by 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_bell_measurement or verify_superdense. The description simply gives the operation and restriction, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and formula. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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