naep_gap_year_jurisdiction

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

Given the readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, the description adds behavioral value by explaining the computation: it returns innerdiff1 (focal jurisdiction year gap), innerdiff2 (target jurisdiction year gap), and the gap between them. This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies the analytic intent. It does not contradict the read-only annotation.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, example, and output explanation. It is front-loaded with the core action and free of fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's mention of return values helps. However, the text says 'the gap between them' (singular), implying exactly two jurisdictions, while the schema allows 2+ jurisdictions. This mismatch leaves the agent uncertain how additional jurisdictions are handled. The tool's moderate complexity would benefit from clarifying the role of each jurisdiction and the treatment of multiple inputs.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description introduces the concepts of 'focal jurisdiction' and 'target,' which map to the jurisdictions parameter, but it does not clarify how these roles are assigned when more than two jurisdictions are provided. This leaves a slight ambiguity that the schema does not resolve.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Compare how score changes between years differ across jurisdictions,' which precisely describes the tool's function. It also includes a concrete example (COVID learning loss in California vs. Massachusetts) and names the specific outputs returned, making it distinct from sibling NAEP tools that compare levels or groups rather than year-over-year gaps.

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 example implies a use case (comparing pandemic impact across states) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like naep_compare_states or naep_gap_variable_jurisdiction. The guidance is inferred rather than direct, with no exclusions or mention of sibling tools.

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