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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful cost information ($0.50–$1.00 per call) and notes that free alternatives exist, which is beyond what annotations provide. This is consistent with the read-only nature and adds useful behavioral context.

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 concise: two sentences plus a bracketed billing note. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses minimal words to convey the scope. Every part earns its place, with no redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity (four assessment kinds), the description covers all modes and gives a billing caveat. It lacks explicit output/return details, but since there is no output schema and the annotations cover safety, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. A slightly richer note on what each kind returns would push it to 5.

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 baseline is 3. However, the description enriches parameter semantics by elaborating on the 'kind' enum values (e.g., 'organizational PQC readiness', 'migration plan', 'portfolio-level quantum risk', 'how close a CRQC actually is'), which the schema only lists as keywords. This adds meaning beyond the schema's terse 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 clearly states the tool assesses exposure to cryptographically-relevant quantum computing, listing four specific assessment types (readiness, migration, portfolio, crqc_benchmark). It uses a specific verb 'assess' and distinguishes from siblings like generate_quantum_key by focusing on risk assessment rather than key generation.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (for PQC readiness, migration, portfolio risk, or CRQC proximity) and explicitly mentions 'Free alternatives exist for several of these — see list_einstein_capabilities.' This gives clear usage context and points to an alternative, though it doesn't detail exact exclusions for each sibling.

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