auto_iv

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that – it does not mention selection logic, caching via as_handle, or any side effects. Since the description carries some burden even with annotations, this sparse disclosure falls short.

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?

One concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes meaning; no filler or repetition. For a tool with a rich schema, this is appropriately terse.

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 schema provides thorough parameter documentation and there is likely an output schema, so the description can afford to be minimal. However, the key term 'Race' is undefined—what does running all three produce, and how does select_by decide? This leaves a meaningful gap in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 100%, so the parameter descriptions already document each field. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning; its reference to 'single-endogenous' aligns with the `endog` and `instruments` parameters but does not elevate beyond the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Race') and clearly enumerates the estimators (2SLS, LIML, JIVE) and the target specification (single-endogenous IV). It differentiates itself from single-estimator siblings like `jive`, `liml`, and `ivreg` by signaling a combined comparison/selection tool.

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?

Usage is implied ('race' suggests comparing estimators), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over `ivreg` or `liml`, nor any conditions or exclusions. No alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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