etable

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

The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and 'Display' implies a read-only operation, so there is no annotation contradiction. It adds only the 'pyfixest-style' cue and leaves behaviors like server-side caching and chaining to the `as_handle`/`result_id` schema entries. With annotations already covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not information-rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, no restatement of schema fields, and no redundant detail. It earns its place by naming both the action and the output style in the fewest possible words.

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 rich schema and output schema compensate considerably, but the description does not specify the valid call shapes for an 8-parameter, all-optional tool: whether the fitted result comes through `results`, `result_id`, or is reconstructed from `data_path` plus `data_columns`. Given the enormous sibling tool list, a one-sentence invocation contract would materially improve the agent's ability to call this tool 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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The prose description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides for `detail`, `kwargs`, `results`, `as_handle`, and the optional data-loading fields. An agent would have to rely entirely on the schema to understand parameter semantics.

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 ('Display') and a concrete resource ('a pyfixest-style regression table'), which makes the core purpose clear and distinguishes it from plotting tools like plot_from_result. However, 'StatsPAI results' is left undefined and the description does not explicitly differentiate it from other reporting or postestimation siblings.

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 itself gives no guidance on when to use etable versus alternatives such as estat, summary, or plot_from_result. Some usage context exists only in the schema's `detail` parameter, which discusses sub-step calls and payload depth, but that is about choosing a detail level, not about tool selection.

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