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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the upstream dataset identifier (vh55-3he6) and the grain of the return data, but says nothing about default result size, filtering defaults, or rate/coverage caveats beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Two tight sentences with the source and the interpretation of ILI both front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is merely brief rather than richly informative.

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 three-optional-parameter read-only lookup, the description names the source, the grain, and the returned metric, and the annotations cover safety while the schema covers inputs. Since no output schema exists, the one-line return summary is doing the necessary work; only seasonal or geographic coverage limits are 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%, so limit, season, and statename are already documented in the schema. The description restates the state-level grain but adds no syntax, format, or default guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific source (CDC FluView), a specific scope (state-level), and the specific returned metric (weekly ILI activity levels per state), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like cdc_weekly_deaths_by_state or cdc_vaccination_coverage. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so not a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from sibling CDC tools. The agent must infer applicability purely from the topical subject matter.

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