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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it mentions chi-square significance (statistical behavior) and the default table behavior when ids are omitted. This goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent understand what to expect. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a concise usage tip. There is zero wasted words; every clause contributes to understanding the tool. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

While the tool is relatively specialized and the schema covers all parameters, the description lacks detail on the return format or output structure. There is no output schema, so the agent must rely on the description to know what the tool returns. The phrase 'default table and list of available fields' is a start, but it does not explain the table structure, significance indicators, or any other output details. This leaves a moderate gap for an agent planning to use the response.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds meaning by clarifying that omitting row_qid/col_qid returns a default table and available fields, which is not explicitly in the schema. It also implicitly explains the up-to-4 banner limit. This adds value beyond the schema, so a 4 is warranted.

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 clearly states the tool's function: cross-tabulating a question (rows) by up to 4 banner questions (columns) with chi-square significance. It distinguishes this from other result tools like get_results or export_results_csv by specifying the crosstab nature and the row/column structure. The additional note about omitting ids to get a default table and field list further clarifies its behavior.

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 description provides clear context on when to use this tool (for cross-tabulation with multiple banners) and hints at usage via the 'Omit ids' instruction. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the selection to inference. Since the purpose is distinct and the context is clear, a 4 is appropriate.

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