naep_gap_year_jurisdiction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. Description adds output field names but doesn't describe other behavioral aspects like data freshness or limitations. It does not contradict 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?

Two sentences plus an example: highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return fields (innerdiff1, innerdiff2, gap). It covers the main purpose and key parameters. Could add more detail on the gap calculation, but adequate for most agents.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by providing example values (CA, MA for jurisdictions; 2022,2019 for years) and explaining output fields, which helps agents understand the return format.

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?

Description clearly states the tool compares how score changes between years differ across jurisdictions, with a concrete example (COVID learning loss) and specifies the output fields (innerdiff1, innerdiff2, gap). This differentiates it from sibling tools like naep_compare_states or naep_compare_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 gives a clear use case with an example. It explains when to use the tool (comparing year gaps across jurisdictions) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The example suffices for most agents.

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