survival_sensitivity

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the methodological scope ('nonparametric', 'survival / hazard-ratio'). However, it does not disclose what the sensitivity analysis actually varies, what assumptions are made, or what the returned estimates represent. It adds some context but not rich 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the method and its target outcome domain, making it appropriately concise for a tool whose schema already provides detailed parameter information.

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 11 parameters, the rich schema, and the output schema, the description is minimally usable, but it does not fully orient the agent relative to the many sensitivity-analysis siblings. The missing usage guidance and absence of any explanation of the statistical workflow leave clear gaps beyond what structured fields provide.

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 even though the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not clarify that log_hr and se_log_hr are summary statistics from a fitted survival model, nor what gamma_grid or baseline_survival_t imply. The schema largely carries the burden.

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 states a specific purpose: nonparametric sensitivity analysis for survival/hazard-ratio outcomes. It helps distinguish this from generic sensitivity tools by scoping to survival/hazard-ratio settings, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools. The lack of an explicit verb keeps it from being a 5.

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 outcome scope ('survival / hazard-ratio') gives a clear context for when to consider the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to prefer among the many sensitivity-related siblings such as sensitivity, rosenbaum_gamma, evalue, or unified_sensitivity. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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