model_equation_display

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explains the output format (two equations with parameters and standard errors), which is helpful, but it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires special permissions, or handles invalid inputs. For a display tool, the read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 well-structured with headings and equations, and it provides necessary detail without excessive fluff. It could be slightly more concise, but it is organized and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

The description is reasonably complete for a display tool with a single parameter. It explains the output equation forms and the input file type. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately covers return behavior. Minor gaps include error handling and prerequisites, but these are not critical for a read-only display operation.

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?

The description adds substantial meaning to the single parameter beyond the schema's bare type definition. It specifies that inp_path is a path to a .inp or .pre file containing the estimated model, providing file format and purpose that the schema omits.

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 displays the estimated model as two polynomial-operator equations, using a specific verb (display) and resource (model equations). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the B-J-T equation form, which none of the other tools mention.

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 implies usage when you have an estimated model in a .inp or .pre file, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so usage context is only implied.

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