naep_compare_states

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the tool's safe, non-destructive nature. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that it performs significance testing and 'shows which states score significantly higher or lower than others,' giving the agent an idea of the output type. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences plus an example. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Compare NAEP scores across states/jurisdictions with significance testing') and each sentence adds essential detail (significance testing, output behavior, and a concrete example). No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description gives a high-level indication of the return value ('Shows which states score significantly higher or lower than others'), which is sufficient for a read-only comparison tool. The schema covers parameter constraints comprehensively. However, it does not detail the output format or any limitations, but given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of good schema annotations, the description is nearly complete.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters (year, grade, subject, variable, jurisdictions) with 100% coverage. The description's example implies parameter usage (e.g., Massachusetts and Mississippi as jurisdictions, reading as subject) but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already specifies. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Compare NAEP scores across states/jurisdictions with significance testing.' It specifies the resource (NAEP scores), the action (compare), and a distinguishing feature (significance testing). The example 'Compare Massachusetts vs Mississippi reading scores' makes the purpose concrete and unambiguous, and it differentiates this tool from siblings like naep_compare_years or naep_compare_groups.

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 a clear context for use: comparing NAEP scores across states with significance testing, and the example illustrates a specific scenario. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Since there are sibling tools with similar names, the lack of explicit exclusions is a slight gap, but the phrase 'across states/jurisdictions' offers sufficient implied guidance.

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