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. It does not disclose data format requirements, permissions, whether the operation is read-only or mutating, or any rate limits, making behavioral disclosure essentially absent.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision, but structurally it is efficient.

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 annotations, 0% schema description coverage, five parameters, and no parameter explanation in the description, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The existence of an output schema does not offset the missing input and behavioral context.

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% for five parameters, yet the description says nothing about what 'data', 'response', 'model_terms', 'factor_columns', or 'api_key' should contain. It fails to compensate for the undocumented schema, adding no meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 analysis type and data source ('Post-hoc power analysis from existing experiment'), which is more specific than a bare resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling power tools such as covadoe_power_analysis or covadoe_design_power, so an agent cannot tell which to select without opening schemas.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, no prerequisites. The description only gives a one-line purpose statement, leaving the agent to infer the correct context among many covadoe_* design and power tools.

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