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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the call is billed per invocation via x402 and defers to quantum_pricing. This also explains the otherwise surprising readOnlyHint=false on a status lookup. It stops short of describing pending/error states or how long a job typically takes.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the purpose, with the payment caveat placed last where it belongs. The clause 'once done, the decision, measurement statistics...' is elliptical — the verb 'returns' is missing — which slightly hurts readability but wastes no words.

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 one-parameter status tool with no output schema, enumerating the eventual return payload is the right instinct and mostly covers the gap. However, a polling tool really needs guidance on interim states and repeat calls, and that is absent.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics ('hw_... id from quantum_run_hardware'). The description adds no further meaning about the identifier beyond implying the same job_id is reused across polls.

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 a specific resource and verb ('Status of a quantum hardware job') and enumerates what the result contains once the job finishes. It is clearly distinguishable from quantum_run_hardware, which submits jobs, though the description itself never names that sibling — the differentiation comes from the schema's job_id description.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it polls a job previously created by quantum_run_hardware and should be re-called until the job is 'done'. There is no explicit statement about polling cadence, what to do while pending, or when to prefer quantum_verify / quantum_advantage_receipt instead of reading the receipt from this response.

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