qqsynth

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds rich behavioral context: SUTVA and no-anticipation assumptions, the convex-combination identification mechanism, failure modes, and practical rules about pre-period length and donor counts. It also tells users how to interpret and report non-extreme placebo results.

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 dense but efficiently organized into assumptions, pre-conditions, failure modes, alternatives, and minimum N. The opening sentence front-loads the tool's identity, and each section adds distinct decision-relevant value without repeating schema content.

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?

For a high-complexity estimator with an output schema already present, the description covers validity conditions, common failure modes, corrective actions, alternative tools, and sample-size guidance. No critical information needed to decide whether to call qqsynth and interpret its results is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has its own description and defaults. The prose reinforces method-level constraints such as needing more pre-periods than donors, but it does not add specific detail for parameters like n_quantiles, seed, or detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence identifies qqsynth as the quantile variant of DiSCo, making the estimator and its scope evident. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like synth, discos, and sdid by naming the exact method and alias.

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 states concrete pre-conditions for when the tool is appropriate: panel structure, pre-treatment window length, and complete outcomes. Failure modes explicitly route to alternatives, such as using sdid or augsynth when pre-treatment RMSPE is large, and warn when placebo inference indicates the effect may be noise.

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