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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: case figures are included only when public pages already show them, are reproduced as reported, and are never verified by InfectRisk. This is valuable caveat information that an agent needs before presenting case counts as authoritative.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose and returned fields, and then adds the essential caveat about case figures. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition of the title or schema content.

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?

For a read-only list tool with two optional enum parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned, the data provenance caveat, and how this dataset differs from the respiratory tools. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the shape of the output list or how lifecycle statuses map to the status parameter, but the schema already defines the status enum values.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (locale and status) with enums and defaults. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify the overall scope of the returned data. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('outbreak notifications InfectRisk tracks'), enumerates the fields returned (disease, affected region, lifecycle status, WHO link, brief, page), and explicitly distinguishes this dataset from the respiratory activity tools. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from siblings like get_infection_activity.

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 clearly states what this tool is for and explicitly says it is a separate dataset from the respiratory activity tools, carrying no incidence numbers and no personal risk assessment. This gives an agent a clear sense of when to use it versus get_infection_activity, though it does not name the sibling explicitly or provide a direct 'use X instead when...' routing.

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