three_sls

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

The description mentions 'Validation: certified parity evidence,' but this is vague and unexplained. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds little about side effects or runtime behavior. It does not clarify what 'certified parity evidence' means, how validation is performed, or any requirements or limitations.

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 (one sentence), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks necessary structure and depth for a complex econometric tool. Conciseness should not sacrifice essential information; this is more under-specification than effective conciseness.

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?

With 10 parameters, many siblings, and an output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 3SLS does, when to use it, how to specify equations and instruments, or what the 'certified parity evidence' refers to. An agent would lack critical context to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, but many descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'maxiter parameter (int)') and fail to explain meaning. The tool description adds nothing about parameters. For instance, 'equations' is described as a Dict type but not how to structure the equations, and 'instruments' is only listed as a full set without explaining its role. The description does not compensate for these weak schema 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 names the specific econometric method 'Three-Stage Least Squares (3SLS)' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as estimating a system of equations. It doesn't explicitly state the action (e.g., 'estimates') but the method name is self-explanatory. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like regress or ivreg, but the name is specific enough to avoid major confusion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use 3SLS versus other estimation tools. There is no mention of conditions such as simultaneous equations, endogeneity, or instrument validity, nor any reference to alternative tools. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for a tool in a large sibling set.

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