quantum_run_estimator

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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only and open-world, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the default is a preview with no hardware submission, and a false dry_run submits real work. It also clarifies that shots are per measurement configuration, which affects cost/runtime expectations. It doesn't mention whether submission returns an async job needing polling (siblings include quantum_job and quantum_cancel_job), which would complete the picture.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core purpose front-loaded and the safety-relevant dry_run note placed last. No filler.

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, the description doesn't need to explain return values, and it covers the two most error-prone semantics (Pauli qubit ordering and per-configuration shots). Gaps remain around backend/instance selection and whether the call is synchronous or returns a job handle, which matter for a hardware-submitting 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully explains the observable encoding (rightmost Pauli character is qubit 0), shots semantics, and dry_run, but leaves four of seven parameters (backend_name, instance, max_execution_seconds, coefficient) entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate one weighted Pauli-sum observable.' That cleanly separates it from the sampler/simulator siblings, which sample bitstrings rather than expectation values. It stops short of naming a sibling directly, but the estimator-vs-sampler distinction is clear from the wording.

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?

The description implies usage through the dry_run sentence ('False submits hardware work; default previews only'), which tells the agent how to preview safely. It never states when to choose this over quantum_run_sampler or quantum_simulate, and gives no exclusion conditions or prerequisite guidance.

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