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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description reinforces this by calling the output a 'proposal' (not a saved schema), which is useful context, but says nothing about latency/processing cost (schema generation is typically an LLM-backed operation), whether a document must be processed first, or error conditions.

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?

It's a single focused sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the artifact. The brevity is efficient, but for a potentially expensive generation call it's also slightly thin on caveats.

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?

A read-only, two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema is simple, but with no output schema the description should say what a 'proposal' looks like or how it's consumed (e.g., passed to update_extraction_schema_from_json_schema). That link is missing, leaving an agent unsure of the next step after the call.

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 100% for both required parameters, so the schema already explains inbox_id and document_id. The phrase 'in a document in an inbox' adds only a weak relational hint that document_id must belong to inbox_id, which the schema field text already implies.

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 uses a specific verb (generate) plus a specific artifact (an Airparser extraction schema proposal) and names the source (an existing document in an inbox). It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like update_extraction_schema_from_json_schema or get_extraction_schema.

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 word 'proposal' implies output is not yet persisted, which hints at the difference from update_extraction_schema, but the description never states when to use this versus get_extraction_schema or update_extraction_schema_from_json_schema. Usage must be inferred from the name and title.

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