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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: receipt sealing, digest and budget binding, assumption notes, verification via verify_quantum_receipt, and refusal thresholds for excessive rotation angles or too-fine budgets. It does not contradict the annotation, though 'sealed' leaves slight ambiguity about whether a persistent artifact is created.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, but it is dense and includes detailed output enumeration despite an output schema already existing. Several clauses are wordy and could be tightened without losing actionable information for the agent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, nine parameters, nested inputs, and existing output schema, the description covers input alternatives, refusal conditions, receipt sealing, and verification sufficiently. It is largely complete, though it could mention when to choose this over related estimation or execution siblings.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all nine parameters in detail. The description reinforces the input alternatives and some defaults, but adds little semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool as producing fault-tolerant resource estimates for a quantum program, including logical counts and physical-resource projections. It distinguishes itself from verification via verify_quantum_receipt, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like compile_qasm or run_quantum_circuit.

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?

It states the accepted input forms (program, counts document, routine document) and gives refusal conditions, which implies when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of related siblings such as run_on_target, qec_code, or compile_qasm, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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