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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return shape ('total deaths and age-adjusted death rates per cause per state per year'), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination, defaults, or coverage limits.

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 resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. The dataset ID parenthetical is compact and useful rather than wasteful.

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 does the right thing by sketching the returned measures, and all four parameters are documented in the schema. It is nearly complete; the main gap is any note on row limits or how age-adjusted rates should be interpreted.

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 all four parameters (year, limit, state, cause_name) are already documented with examples. The description only echoes the filtering dimensions ('per cause per state per year') and adds no syntax, allowed-value, or default detail beyond the schema; 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 verb and resource ('NCHS leading causes of death by state') and even cites the source dataset ID (bi63-dtpu), which clearly distinguishes it from cdc_drug_overdose_deaths, cdc_flu_surveillance, and cdc_weekly_deaths_by_state. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer for adjacent mortality questions, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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 closing phrase 'Useful for chronic disease + injury mortality research' implies a use case but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and names no alternative. For a query tool with several CDC siblings, the routing burden is left entirely to inference.

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