naep_compare_years

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

The 'readOnlyHint' annotation already declares it as read-only; the description adds 'with significance testing', which is behavioral. However, it does not disclose limits on number of years, error handling, or other behavioral traits.

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?

Three concise sentences front-loaded with the key action ('Compare NAEP scores across assessment years with significance testing'). No wasted words.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain return format or structure. Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, comparison logic), more detail would be helpful, but the description is minimally adequate.

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 does not add parameter-specific details beyond purpose; the schema already describes parameters well.

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 comparing NAEP scores across assessment years with significance testing, distinguishing it from sibling tools like naep_compare_groups and naep_compare_states. The specific mention of tracking COVID learning loss provides concrete context.

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 gives a concrete use case ('tracking the COVID learning loss and recovery'), implying when to use, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to other NAEP tools.

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