run_carry_core_primary_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the methodology: local first-seen policy-rate versions, pair fixed effects, moving-block bootstrap refits, and the not_evaluable condition until 60 complete clusters exist. This is substantive transparency, though it omits side effects and return structure.

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 three tightly written sentences with no filler. The opening sentence front-loads the main action, the second explains the key methodology, and the third states a critical return condition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 gives good methodological context but is incomplete for invoking the tool correctly: there is no output schema, no parameter semantics, and no return-value description beyond the not_evaluable condition. An agent still cannot confidently know what a successful response contains or how to set the parameters.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters: as_of, count, confirm, or chart_index. An agent cannot determine which parameter controls what, why chart_index is required, or what confirm does, leaving the invocation semantics almost entirely underspecified.

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 and resource: 'Run the frozen carry_core_primary_v1 specification on the five-pair core FX panel.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from the many sibling research/audit tools, which target different panels or specifications.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it names no sibling tools or exclusions. It implies that the test is only meaningful once sufficient history exists, but it does not tell an agent when to choose this over readiness checks or preflight tools like get_carry_core_primary_readiness.

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