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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond those hints by specifying the data granularity, time coverage, and indicator set. No behavioral contradiction exists.

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 sentences deliver the essential content first (what data is included, coverage) and then the practical usage guidance. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, making it compact and easy to scan.

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?

The description is complete enough for tool selection and invocation: it names the indicators, geographic/time coverage, and typical use cases. Since there is no output schema, explaining the return fields in the description helps, though the exact result structure and pagination behavior are not described.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so all three parameters (years, country, limit) are already documented there. The description reinforces country/year scoping but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema; the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (WHO TB burden estimates), the subject (tuberculosis burden by country and year), and enumerates exact data fields (incidence, mortality, HIV-positive share, case detection rate). It also signals the scope of coverage (217 countries from 2000 onward), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like who_tb_budget or who_tb_dictionary.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use for questions about how much tuberculosis a country has, TB death rates, and TB trends over time.' It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear and sufficient for an agent to route queries correctly.

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