naep_compare_states

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds that the tool performs significance testing and highlights which states are higher/lower. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or the exact output format (e.g., whether it returns tables or numeric scores).

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an example. Every sentence adds value, and the most important action is front-loaded. No redundant information.

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 the complexity of 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides an adequate high-level understanding. It states that the output shows which states are significantly higher/lower, but omits details like significance levels, confidence intervals, or whether it returns numeric values or rankings. This could leave an agent uncertain about the exact response structure.

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 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema for parameters like variable or year. The example implies subject and state codes, but that doesn't exceed the schema's own descriptions.

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 it compares NAEP scores across states/jurisdictions with significance testing. The example 'Compare Massachusetts vs Mississippi reading scores' makes the function concrete. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like naep_compare_groups or naep_scores by focusing on state-to-state 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: comparing states with significance testing. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where other naep tools might be more appropriate, nor does it mention alternatives. The example helps but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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