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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description is consistent with. Beyond that it discloses real behavioral context: the result is a ranking of routes with the cheapest per question, the important caveat that absence of a cheap route proves nothing about hardness, and that a thorough contraction-tree search runs locally rather than remotely.

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 method enumeration is dense but earns its space by concretizing what is computed. The phrasing is flowery ('priced on it'), and the closing CLI invocation ('wai-quantum shortcuts --thorough') is of doubtful value to an MCP caller and arguably adds noise rather than clarity.

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 values need no explanation, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. What is missing for a domain-specific analysis tool with a totally undocumented required string parameter is the input contract (QASM text) and any guidance on cost or when this analysis is the right call.

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 0% — the single parameter 'qasm' is an undescribed string. The description alludes only to 'simulating a program' and never says the input is a QASM program or what constraints/format it expects, so it does not compensate for the bare schema.

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 states a concrete operation: enumerate and price every exact classical simulation route for a program, naming the five methods (stabilizer tableau, cut-rank sum, MPS, light cone, state vector). That is far more specific than the name/title alone. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like estimate_resources, so it stops short of a 5.

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 cheapest is named for each question' and 'a cheap route proves the program classically easy; none being cheap proves nothing about hardness' give interpretation guidance for the result. However, there is no statement of when to reach for this versus estimate_resources or qasm_diagnostics, and the trailing 'wai-quantum shortcuts --thorough' points at a CLI invocation rather than telling the agent when to use this tool.

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