Confidence interval

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — a user confirmation step precedes the call — but says nothing about how the confirmation_token round-trip works, what a pending state returns, or how inputs are validated.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the quantity definition is front-loaded. The brevity is not padded, though it edges toward under-specification for an 8-parameter tool.

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, no output schema, and two structurally different modes, the description should explain which inputs go together and what the response contains (interval bounds, point estimate, method). It does none of that, leaving the agent to guess at call shape.

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% of 8 parameters, and the description compensates almost nothing: it names 'column' but never explains the mutually exclusive input modes (column/values for a mean, successes/n for a proportion) that determine which parameters are required. The agent must infer the entire parameter relationship from an undocumented enum and four bare numeric/string fields.

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 computation and its two modes (CI for a mean, CI for a proportion), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like check_spread or run_test at a glance. No explicit sibling differentiation is offered, and the parenthetical '(column the user asked about)' reads as an instruction to the agent rather than a scope statement.

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 user confirms the column first' is a workflow prerequisite, not usage guidance — it never says when to pick this over run_test, describe, or check_spread, nor what happens when the requested quantity is neither a mean nor a proportion. The only actionable hint is the implicit two-step confirm-then-call flow.

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