regress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds method details (HC1, clustered SEs) but does not disclose any side effects, auth needs, or other behavioral traits. The cryptic 'Validation: certified parity evidence' adds little. Given annotations, the description provides some context but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and usage context. The validation note is somewhat cryptic but does not waste many words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a rich schema.

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 output schema exists and schema coverage is high, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential usage and primary parameters. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it omits details about as_handle or detail which are in the schema. Overall adequate.

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 89%, so most parameters are already described. The description adds meaning to key parameters: it explains the formula format and hints at robust/clustered SE behavior. It does not cover all 9 parameters but adds value beyond the schema for the most important ones, raising it above baseline 3.

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 the tool fits an OLS regression with robust or clustered SEs, and specifies the formula input style. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like feols or hdfe_ols by mentioning 'baseline specifications or covariate-adjusted RCT analyses', but does not explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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?

It gives a clear context for when to use: 'baseline specifications or covariate-adjusted RCT analyses'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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