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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds meaningful context: the certificate is sealed with the service's key, re-checkable node for node, founded on an exhaustive search over connected supports, with symmetry reductions for bivariate-bicycle codes. The `bound` limitation on what the search can conclude is a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure, though terms like 'sector' and 'reading' remain opaque.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the middle sentences are dense and jargon-heavy ('In each sector the certificate gives the least weight of a logical found...'), with 'sector' undefined and several clauses that require re-reading. Roughly 100 words that could be tightened without losing content.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description adequately covers what the tool produces and how its certificate is validated. The main residual gap is the unexplained 'sector'/'reading' vocabulary that an agent would need to interpret results.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics beyond the schema: `certificate` triggers a re-check mode (witnesses and search run again) and `bound` is framed as capping what the certificate can establish. That is real meaning not present in the parameter descriptions.

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 specific verb and resource: it shows an error-correcting code and certifies its distance, enumerating the returned artifacts (checks, stabilizers, k by rank, layout, decoders, distance certificate). This clearly separates it from siblings such as qec_decode (decoding) and qec_threshold (threshold estimation).

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 does give a clear operational cue: 'Give `certificate` to check one' and notes that a search stopped by `bound` settles nothing past it, which tells the agent how to read results. But there is no explicit guidance on when to reach for this tool versus qec_decode or qec_threshold, and the 'In each sector' framing is never explained, leaving alternatives to inference.

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