run_panel_diagnostics

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

Annotations are all false, placing full burden on the description. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies data, reads only, or has side effects. It only lists what it checks without describing behavior or outputs.

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 a single sentence of 13 words, making it extremely concise. It is front-loaded with the key action verb ('Check') followed by the specific items, with no redundant information.

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 has 7 parameters and no parameter descriptions in the description, it lacks completeness. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent uninformed about return values or how to interpret the diagnostic checks.

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% according to context, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what 'unit', 'time', or 'data_path' represent, leaving the agent without guidance beyond the schema's field names.

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 specific checks: panel balance, duplicate unit-time keys, missing periods, and treatment timing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_time_series_diagnostics by focusing on panel data diagnostics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Context signals show sibling tools like run_time_series_diagnostics, but no explicit comparison is made.

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