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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: no authentication required, open CDC/CMU Delphi data, unlimited free access, and the dimensional breakdown of the returned rates. It does not contradict the annotations, and missing pagination/rate-limit details are less critical given the output schema 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?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place: scope, output details, use case, and access constraints. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of 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 two-parameter read-only query tool with 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers location network options, output breakdowns, data source, and access requirements, so an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 both locations and epiweeks are already fully documented. The description supplements this by naming the exact network identifiers and confirming state-level coverage, plus the returned groupings, but it does not add substantial new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve CDC FluSurv-NET influenza hospitalization surveillance rates.' It then enumerates covered networks and the exact metrics returned, making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishing it from other flu/disease surveillance tools even without naming them.

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 phrase 'Essential for tracking influenza severity and hospitalizations by season' gives a clear context for when the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternative sibling tools such as delphi.flu.fluview or delphi.covid.hospitalization.

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