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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by framing the result as the caller's assigned job, requiring exact execution, and directing the attestation id to qagent_quantum_proof. It does not describe the return shape, but with annotations present this is a minor gap.

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 two short sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the core object and then immediately gives the required workflow.

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 read-only getter with only two required parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough workflow for an agent to act correctly. A minor gap remains around what the returned quantum job contains and where the attestation id comes from, but the essential next steps are present.

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%, and both agent_id and agent_token are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the implied personal assignment, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

It identifies the resource as the caller's assigned quantum job, but never states an explicit action verb such as retrieve or get. The action is inferred from the tool name and title rather than from the description itself, and sibling differentiation comes only indirectly through workflow references.

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 a clear downstream workflow: run the job exactly with dreamweaver_run or dreamscape_submit, then send the attestation id to qagent_quantum_proof. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list prerequisites, but the intended sequence is clear.

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