Get SAT scores by state

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the exact data vintage ('Class of 2026') and source ('College Board 2026 SAT Suite Annual Report state supplement'), which tells the agent this is authoritative, static published data rather than live data.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the resource and vintage before listing metrics; every clause carries content. It is slightly long and reads as a field dump, but nothing is wasted or repeated from the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned metrics (participation rate, mean total, section scores, benchmark percentages, percentiles, rank, national comparison). For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only the response shape (scalar vs object) is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that two-letter codes, full names, DC, PR and VI are accepted. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Class of 2026 SAT results for one state') and enumerates the exact metrics returned, so the agent knows precisely what data comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like rank_states_by_sat or get_sat_percentile, even though it lists 'rank by mean' as a returned field, which could confuse selection.

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 phrase 'for one state, DC, Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands' implies single-geography lookups and implicitly contrasts with the multi-state rank_states_by_sat tool, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing is given.

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