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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the persistence profile is partially covered. The description usefully reinforces that results are not saved, but it says nothing about what the tool returns (test output vs. errors), which matters for a test harness.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the operation and the key non-persisting constraint front-loaded. No waste.

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?

For a tool that executes user-supplied Python, an agent would want to know what the response contains (validation result, output values, errors) since there is no output schema. That is missing, though the core operation and non-persistence are covered.

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%, so all three parameters (code, inbox_id, document_id) are documented in the schema, and the description adds no further detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Run') plus resource ('Airparser post-processing Python code') and a clear scope ('against an existing parsed document without saving it'). The 'without saving' clause distinguishes it from save_postprocessing_code and get_postprocessing, so an agent can route correctly.

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 phrase 'without saving it' implies a dry-run/test use case before persisting, but the description never explicitly states when to use this versus get_postprocessing_runtime_rules or get_postprocessing, nor names any prerequisite. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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