check_statistical_reporting

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 implies a read-only detection pass but never states whether anything is mutated, what permissions are needed, what the output looks like (no output schema exists), or how many records it can handle — none of the behavioral traits beyond the one-sentence scope are disclosed.

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 the core scope stated first and the exclusion tacked on efficiently. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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?

For a one-parameter tool this is a thin but workable definition. The hint about which statistical quantities matter partially compensates for the completely opaque record schema, but with no annotations and no output schema, the agent still lacks enough to construct correct input records with confidence.

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 coverage is 0% with a single untyped array-of-objects parameter (additionalProperties: true, no defined keys), so the description must explain what a "record" must contain. It hints at the relevant fields (p values, CIs, sample sizes) but never states the expected key names, required vs optional entries, or the record structure an agent must build.

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 ("Find") and a precisely bounded resource ("mechanically inconsistent p values/CIs/sample-size entries"), then distinguishes itself from broader siblings like assess_methodology by excluding semantic judgment ("not test results"). An agent can tell this apart from the other audit tools without opening any 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?

The phrase "not test results" gives an explicit when-not boundary, steering the agent away from using this for interpreting or assessing findings. However, it names no concrete alternative sibling to route to when the task actually is about test results, so guidance is clear but not fully actionable.

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