naep_achievement_levels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds interpretive context (returns percentages for the four achievement levels, with a concrete example), but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, or subject/grade restrictions beyond what the schema already states.

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 compact: a clear functional sentence, an emphasis line, and a helpful example. The all-caps sentence is somewhat promotional but still conveys the metric's importance without bloating the text.

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 a rich schema and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient for a basic call: it specifies the output type (percentages per achievement level) and gives a concrete interpretation. It does not explain optional filters like variable or jurisdiction, but the schema already documents those.

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 fully documented. The description adds no new parameter-level guidance, though its example ('37% of 4th graders scored Below Basic in reading') indirectly ties grade and subject to the output.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('percentage of students at each NAEP achievement level'), enumerating the four levels. It is clearly distinct from siblings like naep_scores, but it does not explicitly name the alternative or contrast itself with it.

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 gives a clear use case ('key literacy/numeracy metric', 'what % of students can read/do math at grade level') and a concrete example, but it never says when to prefer this tool over plausible siblings such as naep_scores, naep_compare_years, or naep_compare_states. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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