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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says what is computed. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires a design object, what computational cost or limitations exist, or what the output structure contains.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but for a four-parameter, annotation-free tool it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Brevity here reflects missing information, not efficient communication.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves the agent without usage context or parameter meaning for a non-trivial statistical tool. Given zero annotation and schema coverage, it is insufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, and the description mentions none of them. It does not explain the expected shape of 'data', what 'factor_columns' should contain, or what 'max_order' controls, leaving parameters completely 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?

The description gives a specific verb and technical resource: 'Compute alias/confounding structure and design resolution.' An agent familiar with DoE terminology can identify it as an alias-structure computation tool, though it does not distinguish this from related siblings like covadoe_analyze or covadoe_design_space.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other covadoe design-analysis tools. The description implies a design-evaluation context but never states prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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