naep_scores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it 'Returns average scale scores,' which is a useful behavioral disclosure, but it does not cover data freshness, rate limits, or response structure. The rest of the description focuses on parameter values rather than behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then structured using labeled lines for Subjects, Grades, Variables, and Jurisdiction. It is compact, with no redundant prose, and each line provides quick-reference value for the most important parameters.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core concepts (subjects, grades, variables, jurisdiction) but omits key parameters such as year, subscale, stat_type, and categoryindex. It also states 'Returns average scale scores' without acknowledging that stat_type can produce other statistics (e.g., row percentages, achievement levels), so the description is not fully complete for the tool's actual capabilities.

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 has 100% coverage, including detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters. The tool description repeats the subjects, grades, variables, and jurisdiction lists in a condensed cheat-sheet format, but adds no new semantic meaning; it even omits some schema details like the 'XN'/'XC' jurisdiction codes and the stat_type, subscale, and categoryindex parameters, making it less comprehensive than 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 'Get NAEP test scores' and specifies that it returns average scale scores by subject, grade, state, and demographic group. This is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling NAEP tools like naep_compare_years or naep_achievement_levels, 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?

The description implies usage by framing this as the go-to tool for retrieving raw test scores, but it never explicitly states when to use this versus alternatives. It lists parameter values and scopes, giving clear context on what the tool accepts, yet offers no exclusions or alternative tool references, so guidance is only implicit.

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