Descriptive statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important confirmation prerequisite ('The user confirms the columns first'), but it doesn't explain the confirmation_token flow, the idempotentHint=false behavior, or what happens if no confirmation is given.

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 compact and front-loads the output list, followed by the scope and confirmation constraint. It is dense but every sentence carries information; a 5 is withheld only because the statistics list is somewhat mechanical.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description helpfully enumerates the statistics returned, which is good. But for a 7-parameter tool with multiple input modes and a confirmation-token workflow, it omits how those parameters interact, leaving an agent to infer behavior from sparse schema descriptions.

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?

With only 43% schema description coverage across 7 parameters, the description needs to compensate but largely doesn't. It maps 'column' and 'by group' to column and group_column, and mentions confidence intervals, but leaves the 'name', 'values', and 'file' input modes entirely unexplained – an agent cannot tell from the description that values can be supplied directly instead of a file/column.

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 states a specific set of outputs (n, mean, SD, median, quartiles, range, skewness, kurtosis, shape, CI) for a column, optionally by group, which is clearly a descriptive-statistics operation. It doesn't distinguish itself from close siblings like group_summary, check_spread, or confidence_interval, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It implies the tool is for a column the user asked about and that the user must confirm columns first, which is useful workflow context. However, it never says when to use this instead of group_summary, check_spread, or confidence_interval, nor when not to use it.

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