preliminary_outlier_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a standardized series with ±2σ bands and outliers marked, plus a recommendation. It also explains the rationale (outlier treatment before identification). It stops short of discussing side effects or limitations, but for a scanning/analysis tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and includes a structured Parameters section. The Spanish phrase 'Lo más obvio primero' adds flavor but is not strictly necessary. Overall, it's efficient and organized, with no redundant repetition of schema info.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, when to use, parameter meanings, and output content. It doesn't include edge cases or error conditions, but for a preliminary scan tool it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does. Each parameter is given a concise definition: inp_path as the .inp file, d and D as confirmed differencing orders, lam as Box-Cox lambda with examples, and threshold with a default. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('scan') and resource ('differenced series') and clearly distinguishes its role as a preliminary step before ARMA order selection. It also names the output (standardised series with outlier marks and recommendation), which clarifies its purpose relative to siblings like identification_analysis and intervention_analysis.

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 explicitly says 'BEFORE choosing ARMA orders' and explains why (outliers distort ACF/PACF). It also gives a decision-relevant recommendation on adding interventions before identification. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the timing and context are unambiguous enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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