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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the paid-tier requirement, which matters for auth/access, but says nothing about output shape, whether county/state/fips are alternatives or combinable, or how the fixed 2025-2040 window interacts with from_year/to_year.

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?

Three short, front-loaded fragments with no filler: purpose, trend context, access tier. Slightly telegraphic and the 'baby-boomer mortality trajectory' clause is more color than specification, but nothing is wasted.

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 5-parameter tool with zero required fields, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation anywhere, the description leaves too much unexplained — particularly geographic identifier selection, which is the core input decision.

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?

Five parameters at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies a year range via '2025-2040' but never explains fips vs. state vs. county selection or whether they are mutually exclusive.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Year-by-year expected deaths for a county, 2025-2040' tells an agent exactly what is returned and the time horizon. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like deathcare_market or deathcare_growth_ranking, which occupy adjacent territory.

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 indication of when to choose this over deathcare_market, deathcare_growth_ranking, or deathcare_bulk_extract. The only guidance is the access tier ('PAID (Professional and above)'), which is an eligibility constraint rather than a usage condition.

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