source_decompose

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not describe what the output contains, how parity is verified, or any computational caveats. The cryptic 'certified parity evidence' could be a reliability claim but is uninformative. No contradiction with annotations, but no added value either.

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 brief, which is concise, but the 'Validation: certified parity evidence' clause is an unexplained jargon fragment that takes up space without earning its place. The method name is front-loaded, but there is no structured elaboration or framing to help an agent parse it.

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?

Despite the rich schema and output schema, the two-sentence description does not orient the agent on what a source decomposition returns, how the validation claim was established, or how to interpret the Gini variants referenced only in the schema. With 9 parameters and a large sibling list, the description is too thin to be contextually self-sufficient, although the 100% schema coverage and output schema reduce the burden.

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%; the schema thoroughly documents all 9 parameters, including defaults, enums, and formats (e.g., detail levels, gini choice, as_handle, data_path schemes). The description itself contains no parameter information, 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 description names the exact method (Lerman-Yitzhaki 1985 Gini source decomposition), which identifies a specific operation: decomposing the Gini coefficient into income-source contributions. This distinguishes it from sibling decompositions like oaxaca or melly_decompose, though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit instruction, and the 'Validation: certified parity evidence' fragment adds nothing to purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The method name implies a use case, but the description mentions no sibling tools, no exclusions, no data prerequisites, and no conditions that select this over inequality_index, shapley_inequality, or melly_decompose.

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