naep_compare_groups

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's addition of 'significance testing' and 'achievement gaps' provides valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but these are not critical for a read-only tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the examples are concise and directly relevant. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

The description conveys the core functionality and output concept (achievement gaps) but does not specify the exact return structure or fields. Given no output schema, a bit more detail on the output could be helpful, but the tool is straightforward and the description is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds examples like 'White vs Black' and 'Male vs Female', which clarify the meaning of the 'variable' parameter, but this is marginal since the schema already lists the allowed values with descriptions. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool compares NAEP scores across demographic groups with significance testing, and gives concrete examples of gaps. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like naep_compare_years and naep_compare_states by focusing on demographic comparisons.

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 when to use this tool (for comparing groups) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks exclusions or guidance on choosing between this and other NAEP comparison tools, so an agent must infer usage from the name and context.

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