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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description aligns by saying 'Returns'. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations: weekly update frequency, the composite z-score methodology, and the exact returned fields. It doesn't mention authentication or rate limits, but the read-only annotation lowers the bar.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core result, then adds trigger conditions and update cadence. Every clause carries information, but the sentence is quite long and uses technical jargon. It's efficient, not bloated.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the key output fields and explaining the nature of the score. Combined with the data source, use cases, and update frequency, it provides enough context for a straightforward read-only API tool.

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%: the single 'days' parameter has a full description covering the optional history behavior, Gold tier restriction, and range. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and clearly defines the resource: a 0-100 US infectious-disease burden score based on CDC NNDSS notifiable-disease counts. It also lists the output components (IOM top_drivers, source_lineage, methodology_version), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from generic index tools.

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?

Explicitly provides a trigger list: 'Call when the user asks about notifiable-disease burden, outbreak surveillance, epidemic risk, or CDC case-count trends' and includes practical applications like group-health underwriting and actuarial re-pricing. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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