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

Annotations already communicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context with '12-month rolling counts' and the dataset ID, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention response format, temporal coverage, or pagination behavior, so it adds some but not rich behavioral detail.

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 three short sentences, and each one earns its place: identifying the dataset, describing the rolling-count aggregation, and stating practical use cases. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with three optional parameters and no required inputs, the description covers the subject, dimensions, aggregation, and intended applications. It is missing explicit details like date range or row contents, but given the simple schema and strong annotations, it is adequately complete.

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 all three parameters: limit, indicator, and state_name. The description merely restates 'by state and indicator' without adding new parameter-level meaning. This matches the baseline where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource as 'CDC drug overdose deaths by state and indicator' and adds the dataset ID (9j2v-jamp), making it distinct from related CDC tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'provides', but the intent is unmistakable. It differentiates well from siblings such as cdc_weekly_deaths_by_state and cdc_leading_causes_of_death.

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 provides use cases ('opioid/fentanyl/stimulant policy research and treatment-program siting'), which imply when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling CDC tools or mention any exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than direct.

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