naep_achievement_levels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds an example of the output format and interprets the metric as showing grade-level proficiency, but it does not disclose defaults, edge cases, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations and schema already provide.

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 plus a concrete example, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence carries meaning, and the all-caps emphasis highlights the metric's importance without adding significant fluff.

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?

Adequate for basic use, but with many NAEP sibling tools, the description does not clarify when to use this specific tool. The example provides a glimpse of output, while schema covers parameters. Missing discussion of variable and jurisdiction breakdowns relative to alternatives leaves some gaps.

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. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning; it only clarifies the output nature (percentages per level). Grade and subject constraints are already well documented in the schema.

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?

Clearly states it gets the percentage of students at each NAEP achievement level, listing the specific levels and providing a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling NAEP tools like naep_scores or naep_compare_years, so it falls short of 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It emphasizes being the key metric but does not mention when to prefer it over naep_scores or other NAEP comparison tools, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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