naep_gap_variable_jurisdiction

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, and the description goes beyond by explaining the output fields (innerdiff1, innerdiff2, and the gap between them). This adds useful behavioral context about what the tool returns.

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, no filler, front-loaded with the main purpose and an illustrative example. Every sentence earns its place.

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 straightforward read-only nature, 5 parameters with full schema descriptions, and the description's explanation of return values, the tool is well covered. Minor omissions like edge-case behavior do not detract significantly.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds an example of how subject and variable map to real-world use, but does not materially deepen parameter understanding beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool compares achievement gaps across states, with an example ('poverty gap in math bigger in Mississippi than Massachusetts?'). It distinguishes itself from sibling NAEP tools by emphasizing gap comparisons between jurisdictions.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: comparing how achievement gaps differ across states. Gives a concrete example, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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