naep_compare_states

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 agent knows it's a safe, read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the tool performs significance testing and shows which states are significantly higher or lower. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about the nature of the output. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a concrete example. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what it does, the second explains the output, and the example illustrates the input. This is a model of conciseness.

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 covers the main use case, and the annotations handle safety. The schema fully documents parameters, and the description explains the significance testing aspect. There is no output schema, but the description gives enough context about what the agent can expect (comparison results with significance). It does not mention limitations like which subjects are available for which grades, but that is in the schema. Overall, it is complete for a comparison tool.

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% – every parameter (year, grade, subject, variable, jurisdictions) has a description. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics; it only gives an example using 'reading' and 'Massachusetts vs Mississippi', which is not semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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's purpose: comparing NAEP scores across states/jurisdictions with significance testing. It specifies the action (compare), the resource (NAEP scores across states), and the distinguishing feature (significance testing). The example (Massachusetts vs Mississippi reading) reinforces the purpose and helps an agent understand the use case. This differentiates it from siblings like naep_scores (which likely just returns scores) or naep_compare_years (comparing years).

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 the tool is for state-to-state comparisons via the example, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like naep_compare_groups (comparing demographic groups) or naep_compare_years (comparing years). There is no 'use this for X, not for Y' guidance. The example gives a hint, but the lack of explicit exclusions or alternatives makes the usage guidance only implied, not explicit.

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