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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint (deterministic, bounded) beyond annotations, but does not explain output behavior or limits beyond what the schema states. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 8 parameters, 38% schema coverage, and no output schema explanation needed (output schema exists), the description still omits critical constraints such as the weighting prohibition (weighted must be false) and the inputSemantics attestation requirement, which are only partially covered in the schema. For a tool with this parameter complexity, the description is inadequate.

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 only 38%, so most parameters (rowLabels, columnLabels, percentage, rowVariable, columnVariable) have no schema documentation. The description provides no parameter-level detail at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline would be 3 only if coverage were high; here it is low and the description does not help, but it is not actively misleading.

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 (Compute) and resource (statistics from a contingency matrix) with a scope qualifier (deterministic, bounded, aggregate). It does not distinguish itself from render_crosstab or run_table, but the 'analyze' vs 'render' distinction is implied by the description's focus on statistics rather than display.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings like render_crosstab and run_complex_survey_method, an agent cannot tell from the description alone when this aggregate-only tool is the right choice versus those alternatives.

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