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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a reference lookup, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds real context beyond annotations: the outcome taxonomy and the stability guarantee 'a code never changes meaning once released', which tells an agent it can cache or cite these definitions. It does not clarify what happens when `code` is omitted (full catalogue vs. error) or the shape/size of the response.

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 long sentence built from nested parentheticals and semicolons, plus a two-clause follow-up. It is not padded with marketing, but the literary-style construction makes the agent parse twice to extract the two code families. Front-loading is only partial: the reader-code half arrives before the job_codes half is introduced.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and readOnlyHint covers the safety profile, so the remaining burden is light. The description supplies the code taxonomy, prefix meanings and stability contract, which is most of what an agent needs. The only residual gap is the no-argument case (does omission return the whole catalogue?), which the phrase 'every code ... and beside them, under job_codes' only implies.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents the 'Q103 or J011' form. The description does add meaning the schema lacks: that Q-prefixed codes are reader diagnostics and J-prefixed codes are job/request codes, and that `code` may select 'one of either'. That is useful but modest, so the 3 baseline is right.

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?

It names a specific resource (the OpenQASM reader's diagnostic codes) and states exactly what each entry contains: an outcome label (refused, lowered, carried, preserved, warned) plus a meaning, with a parallel job_codes section for request-side codes. An agent can tell this apart from critique_qasm or repair_qasm, which produce fixes rather than code definitions. The dense, semicolon-heavy phrasing costs a point versus a crisp verb+resource statement.

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: 'each refusal and warning carries one, as [Q103] at the end of its message' hints that this is where you look up a code you saw in output, but it never says 'call this after a compile/repair failure' or names any alternative tool. No when-not-to-use guidance is given. The intent is inferable but not stated.

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