naep_gap_variable_jurisdiction

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

Annotations already denote readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is clear. The description adds the specific return fields but does not disclose other traits like required permissions, error behavior for invalid inputs, or rate limits.

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 plus an example convey the purpose and output without wasted words. The structure is front-loaded with the main action and includes a helpful illustrative question.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields and usage context. However, it omits details on how the order of jurisdictions determines focal vs target, which might be ambiguous.

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 has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining the concept of focal versus target jurisdiction implicitly and naming the output fields, which aids understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 achievement gaps across states with a concrete example. It specifies the return values (innerdiff1, innerdiff2, gap between them), distinguishing it from siblings like naep_compare_states.

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 example ('Is the poverty gap in math bigger in Mississippi than Massachusetts?') implies usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like naep_compare_states or naep_scores, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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