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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the CDC NHSN source, the granularity (national or single state), the scope limit, and the explicit 1-credit cost.

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 opening question front-loads the purpose and the payload, source, audience and caveat follow in a compact sequence. Slightly dense in places but no sentence is wasted; the cost tag is a useful tail.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries sufficient weight: it enumerates the returned metrics and the data source. The one real gap is distinguishing this from the covid and rsv hospital-admission tools in the same family.

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 is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds one useful nuance by saying "nationally or for one state", implying jurisdiction is a single value rather than a multi-select, as well as the weekly cadence.

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 resource (weekly new hospital admissions for laboratory-confirmed influenza) and enumerates the metrics returned, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It never mentions the near-identical siblings covid_hospital_admissions_weekly and rsv_hospital_admissions_weekly, so disambiguation relies on the name alone.

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 line "For planners, parents and reporters tracking the season" implies who and when, and "Hospital data only: it does not count flu cases in the community or deaths" sets a clear scope exclusion. However, it never names the covid/rsv equivalents or the wrong-condition to avoid, which is the most likely selection error here.

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