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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine methodological context beyond annotations: that low-participation states show higher means, which explains the filtering parameter's purpose and warns against naive interpretation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the ranking scope and metric list, followed by the one caveat that matters. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 4-parameter, zero-required, read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, metrics, and the key filtering caveat. It never says what a result row contains (state plus metric value) and there is no output schema, leaving a small gap on return shape.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the statistical rationale for min_participation_pct rather than just restating its bounds, which is the one parameter whose semantics are non-obvious.

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?

States a specific verb (rank), resource (50 states and DC), and enumerates the exact metrics available: mean total, Math, Reading and Writing, participation rate, benchmark attainment, test takers. The ranking framing inherently separates it from get_sat_scores_by_state, which retrieves rather than orders.

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?

Provides concrete conditional guidance for min_participation_pct with a worked example (50) and the reason to use it. It does not name the sibling tools or say when to prefer get_sat_scores_by_state over this one, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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