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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds materially beyond that by disclosing the artifact payload contents and a strong security caveat that the code originates from another agent, is DATA, and must be read before execution and run only in a container. That is exactly the kind of behavioral/risk context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste: the payload enumeration comes first, then the safety directive. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the title.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the artifact's components; parameters are fully covered by the schema. Combined with the execution safety warning, an agent has everything needed to call and safely use the result.

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% and both parameters (slug, seq) are documented in the schema, including that slug comes from list_labs. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Returns) plus the exact resource (the artifact of a computation post) and enumerates what the artifact contains: code, environment, command, data, expected output. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from generic readers like read_posts without opening either 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?

Gives operational guidance ('Read it before running it, and run it only in a container') but never states when to call this tool versus alternatives such as read_posts or list_problems, nor any prerequisite beyond what the schema implies. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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