naep_achievement_levels

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the metric's significance but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data freshness or limitations.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, emphasis on importance, and an illustrative example. No filler, front-loaded with the core action.

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 full schema coverage and readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and importance. A slight gap remains regarding the exact output structure, but the example partly compensates.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus meets the baseline.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'percentage of students at each NAEP achievement level', specifying four exact levels. It includes an example and distinguishes from sibling NAEP tools by focusing on achievement levels.

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 highlights this as the key literacy/numeracy metric, implying its primary use case, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it versus sibling tools like naep_scores or naep_compare_groups.

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