logrank_test

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds little beyond the name; it does not state that the test produces a p-value or chi-square statistic, or that it compares two or more groups. The cryptic 'Validation: certified parity evidence.' is unclear and adds no actionable behavioral detail.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences), and the main purpose is front-loaded. However, the second sentence 'Validation: certified parity evidence.' is vague and likely confusing; it does not earn its place and detracts from clarity. The structure is efficient but the content is not entirely purposeful.

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 is too terse for a tool with 9 parameters and a large sibling set. It does not explain the nature of the test, when it is appropriate, or how it differs from kaplan_meier, cox, or survival_sensitivity. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description lacks the context needed for an agent to confidently select and call this tool.

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 is 3. The schema provides minimal descriptions for event, group, and duration ('Column names.'), and the tool description does not elaborate on what these columns represent. While the schema covers all parameters, it does not fully clarify their roles, and the description offers no additional semantic value.

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 a specific verb (test) and resource (equality of survival distributions across groups), which distinguishes it from descriptive tools like kaplan_meier or regression tools like cox. It is unambiguous about the statistical test being performed.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is non-parametric, unadjusted for covariates, or that cox should be used for adjustment. With a large sibling set including many survival tools, the lack of routing advice leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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