oster_delta

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it states the result is an interval rather than a point, describes the weak set-identifying assumptions, explains the Oster delta proportional-selection interpretation, and gives a concrete failure mode with remediation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 first sentence is specific and front-loaded, and the labeled sections are efficient despite covering assumptions, preconditions, failure modes, alternatives, and minimum N. The 'Validation' sentence is generic and adds little actionable information, keeping this from a 5.

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 complexity of the tool and the presence of an output schema plus readOnly annotation, the description is largely complete: it covers assumptions, preconditions, failure modes, alternatives, and typical minimum sample size. It is slightly weakened by not clarifying the relationship between oster_delta and oster_bounds and by using sp.* names that are not reflected in the sibling list.

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 description adds high-level conceptual context such as proportional selection and interval bounds, but it does not explain individual parameters in a way that goes beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Oster (2019) coefficient stability bounds and delta* computation.' It is clear about the method and adds assumptions and failure modes, but it does not explicitly distinguish oster_delta from the sibling oster_bounds, and the listed 'sp.*' alternatives do not match the visible sibling names.

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 through the assumptions section: Lee bounds add monotonicity, while Oster's delta adds proportional selection. However, the description does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria versus alternatives like oster_bounds, lee_bounds, or manski_bounds; it merely lists them.

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