holm

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers safety, and the description adds no behavior beyond that. 'Validation: certified parity evidence' is an opaque statement that does not explain what the tool does with inputs, what it returns, or any side effects. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description contributes almost no behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second clause, 'Validation: certified parity evidence,' is cryptic and not obviously actionable, which prevents a 5, but there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 seven parameters and a large sibling family, the description is too sparse. The schema covers parameters and an output schema exists, but the description still fails to clarify how this tool fits into a workflow, what 'certified parity evidence' means, or how Holm compares with adjacent corrections. An agent gets the name but not enough context to confidently select it over alternatives.

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 input schema already documents all seven parameters clearly. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema.

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, well-known operation: 'Holm (1979) step-down correction.' This is a clear verb+resource pair and identifies the statistical procedure. However, it does not distinguish it from closely related sibling tools such as bonferroni, benjamini_hochberg, or romano_wolf, so it misses the top score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use Holm versus the many alternative multiple-testing corrections in the sibling list. The phrase 'Validation: certified parity evidence' is not usage guidance, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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