naep_scores

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral details like grade-subject restrictions (e.g., math only grades 4 and 8) and default values. It clearly states it returns average scale scores, providing transparency beyond the read-only annotation.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a clear purpose and then listing valid values in an easily scannable format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers valid values, constraints, and default behaviors. It lacks details on the response format but suffices for a basic understanding. Sibling tools cover specialized comparisons, so this description is sufficient for its role.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by compiling and organizing valid values for subject, grade, variable, and jurisdiction, plus highlighting constraints (e.g., 'math: 4,8 only'). This enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema 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 'Get NAEP test scores' and specifies it returns average scale scores by subject, grade, state, and demographic group. It lists valid values for subjects, grades, variables, and jurisdictions, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like naep_compare_states which focus on 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 implicitly conveys its primary use (fetching scores) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus sibling tools like naep_compare_groups or naep_compare_states. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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