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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the content inventory (algorithm, limits, backends, keys, anchoring), which tells the agent this is a local configuration snapshot rather than a live probe, but says nothing about freshness, caching, or sensitivity of the returned signing-key information.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource identity front-loaded and no filler. The sentence fragment style ('What this server runs:') is slightly informal 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained, and the description still previews the categories of data. For a parameterless read-only status tool this is sufficient, though noting whether the snapshot is static or reflects live backend state would close the last gap.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully described.

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 enumerates the exact configuration facts the tool surfaces (algorithm, qubit limit, backends, signing keys, anchoring), which distinguishes it from compute-style siblings like quantum_optimize and quantum_verify. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, so the action ('report status') is inferred rather than stated, but the scope is unmistakable.

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 call this versus siblings such as pqc_scan_code or quantum_problems, nor any mention of prerequisites or when the result becomes stale. Usage is only implied by the name and the field list.

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