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 meaningful context beyond annotations: the data source (Malaria Atlas Project GeoServer WFS), no-auth access, and the 1980–2017 temporal coverage. It does not explain return format, but the output schema covers that.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by a practical usage instruction and data source attribution. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only data retrieval tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description provides all necessary operational context: what is returned, required input source, date range, and auth requirements. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call 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 the schema already documents all parameters including country, species, year, and limit. The description reinforces the species values ('pf'/'pv') and country code format, but adds little beyond what the schema provides; 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('modeled confirmed malaria case counts per admin1 region and year'), and specifies the geographic and temporal scope. It clearly differentiates from the sibling tools by focusing on case estimates rather than vector occurrence or parasite rate surveys.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite: use malaria-atlas.country_list first to find a valid ISO3 country code. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it against alternatives like parasite_rate_survey, but the usage context is sufficiently clear for an agent.

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