run_iv

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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so description must convey behavior. It mentions first-stage output and diagnostics but does not disclose potential errors, limitations, or default behavior when diagnostics are unavailable.

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?

Single sentence, no extraneous words, but it omits critical information about parameters and output, making it overly terse for a complex 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?

Given the complexity of IV regression (many parameters, nested input, output schema exists), the description is too minimal. It does not summarize inputs or outputs, nor does it explain the tool's role among many sibling regression tools.

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 tool description contains zero parameter descriptions; schema has some descriptions for config_path and project_root, but the description adds no value beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to explain any parameters.

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 'Run an IV regression' with specific outputs (first-stage output and weak-instrument diagnostics). It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_did, run_panel_diagnostics, etc., which are different econometric methods.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria mentioned. The description is purely operational.

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