naep_compare_groups

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the tool performs significance testing and shows achievement gaps, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions present.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and providing concrete examples without any fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format (e.g., difference, significance levels). It mentions 'shows achievement gaps' but lacks detail on output structure. Also, it does not reference optional parameters like year and jurisdiction, which are part of the schema. Adequate but leaves gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by listing specific groups (race, gender, poverty) and providing concrete examples of gaps, which helps users understand the 'variable' parameter beyond the schema's enum list. This extra context justifies a higher score.

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, using examples like White vs Black, Male vs Female. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., naep_compare_states, naep_compare_years) by focusing on demographic groups, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 (when comparing demographic groups) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or mention alternative tools like naep_compare_states for state-level comparisons. Given the many sibling tools, more direct guidance would improve clarity.

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