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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=true, and "computed by the engine (a model, not a run)" is a genuinely useful disclosure that the fidelity figure is estimated rather than measured from execution — something annotations do not convey. Beyond that it says nothing about cost, latency, or whether the QASM must be valid/openQASM-compatible before calling.

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 one long colon-list of return values followed by a second list of smells — exactly the content the output schema already encodes. It is back-loaded on outputs and never front-loads the action, so an agent skimming the first clause learns what it gets before learning what it does.

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 the description need not enumerate returned metrics — yet that is nearly all it does, leaving the actual purpose, usage conditions, and input expectations unaddressed. For a tool in a crowded analysis/repair/diagnostics sibling set, the missing differentiation is a real 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no description, so the description must carry the load — but it never says the input is QASM source text, nor whether it must be a complete program or a fragment. The parameter name "qasm" plus required:true makes the shape guessable, but nothing here adds meaning beyond the 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?

"A program's measures, computed by the engine ... Also its smells" makes it inferable that this performs static analysis of a circuit and reports metrics plus anti-patterns, but the description never states the action (analyze/critique a QASM program) in verb form — it lists outputs instead. It also draws no line between this and qasm_diagnostics, estimate_resources, or improve_qasm, which all sound like adjacent analyses.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this over qasm_diagnostics for structural checks, estimate_resources for cost figures, or improve_qasm when the agent intends to act on the findings. The one implicit cue — "a model, not a run" — hints it is cheaper than running, but the agent must infer that from an output note rather than a usage statement.

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