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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the required module shape, mandatory JSON return, the whitelisted imports, and that no other network access exists. Gaps remain on side effects to /workspace files, timeout behavior, and whether state persists between runs.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the module contract and environment constraints. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 sandboxed code-execution tool with no output schema, the description covers the runtime, entry-point contract, allowed imports, and network isolation, which is what most agents need. Missing timeout semantics and filesystem persistence details keep it short of complete.

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?

With 33% schema coverage, the description usefully clarifies what `code` must contain and that `input` flows into the default export. However, `timeout_ms` is never mentioned in the description or schema, leaving a third parameter undocumented.

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 ('Run a JavaScript (ES module) program inside your workspace'), and the workspace scoping plus code-execution framing clearly separates it from workspace_read, workspace_write, workspace_list, and workspace_delete.

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 execution context is implied (workspace-scoped scripting with data access), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus siblings such as workspace_write or finzdata_get, nor any prerequisite or limit conditions beyond the network restriction.

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