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

Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: the ranking is restricted to runs Privi itself measured and sealed, which tells the agent self-reported vendor numbers are excluded. It also discloses cost (free) and that the payload is a full untailored list; only the response shape is left unexplored.

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?

One front-loaded sentence names the resource, scope, and metric list, then a short line adds pricing and path. Dense but every clause carries information; the metric enumeration is long but is the tool's substance.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description does the necessary work by naming the columns returned and the provenance of the data. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, though stating that results are a full unfiltered ranking would remove the last ambiguity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a single, unsliced result set rather than implying filters an agent might look for.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — every quantum backend ranked by sealed Privi-measured runs — and enumerates the ranking criteria (optimal-hit share, jobs finished, median turnaround, median cost, quantum vs classical tally), which separates it from a plain directory like quantum_backends. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 this is the comparison/ranking view, but the description never says when to prefer it over quantum_backends, quantum_benchmarks, or accelerator_info. There are no exclusions or entry conditions given.

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