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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds useful context about the calibration snapshot, hash, and expanded view output. It does not disclose permissions, defaults, limits, or other operational behavior, so it remains adequate rather than rich.

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 a single dense sentence with no obvious filler, and the resource is front-loaded. Its semicolon-heavy run-on style makes it less readable than an ideal structured description, but every clause carries relevant information.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the definition does not need to fully document return values, and it does enough to explain the target input and the view mode. Remaining gaps, such as target-document format and view default, are minor for a read-only inspection tool.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates well for view by explaining that it adds per-qubit placement, readout, one-qubit errors, and per-pair two-qubit errors for drawing a coupling map. The target parameter is described only by repeating the schema wording, and view's default is not stated.

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 definition clearly identifies the resource and the data shown for a single device target, and the input sentence distinguishes a target name from a target document. It does not explicitly position itself against siblings such as list_targets or run_on_target, 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?

Usage is implied by the title and by the description of what is shown, and the view clause gives one concrete use case: drawing a coupling map with readout and error data. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance compared with list_targets, run_on_target, or other siblings.

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