naep_available_variables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return format (variable names, short labels, long labels), which is useful context beyond annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds value about output.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by usage guidance and return details. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

For a simple discovery tool with 3 required params and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns (variable names and labels). It lacks details like pagination or number of results, but that's minor for this purpose. Annotations cover safety, and the description covers purpose and return format.

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%, with each parameter (years, cohort, subject) already documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (list) and resource (available independent variables for a NAEP subject, cohort, and year). It also clarifies its role as a discovery step before querying scores, which differentiates it from sibling tools like naep_scores or naep_compare_groups.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool before querying scores ('Use this to discover what demographic/survey variables are available before querying scores.'), giving clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions.

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