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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the data freshness trait 'Updated weekly,' and clarifies data granularity (weekly, by age group and flu type), which is useful beyond annotations. It does not disclose caveats like data lag or revisions, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 totaling about 35 words, with the core action and source front-loaded. Every clause carries information: source, data content, update frequency. No filler.

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 single-optional-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies the source, the data content, and the update cycle. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists.

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 coverage for the only parameter 'weeks' is 100%, including a description of default, maximum, and rationale. The tool description adds no extra information about parameters, so the high schema coverage baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'US influenza surveillance data from CDC FluView'. It enumerates the returned data types (weekly ILI activity by age group, positive test rates by type, national summary), which clearly distinguishes it from the many disease/health siblings. No tautology or ambiguity.

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 guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as delphi.flu.fluview or cdc.health.query. The description only states what the tool returns, without conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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