cdc_causes_of_death

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the data range (1999–2017) and example causes, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral details. It adds some value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by essential data range and example causes. No filler or redundancy.

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 readOnlyHint true and fully documented parameters, the description provides adequate context for a simple filtered lookup. It does not explain return values, but given the lack of output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description is reasonably complete. Could mention limit behavior but is not severely lacking.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (year, limit, state). The description's mention of 'by state and year' reinforces this but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clear resource ('leading causes of death in the U.S.') with scope ('by state and year'), effectively distinguishing it from other CDC tools that cover mortality rates or life expectancy. The title and sibling context reinforce this.

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 clear context: it is for U.S. causes of death, filterable by state and year, with data from 1999–2017. It does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling CDC tools like cdc_mortality_rates, but the unique scope is implied.

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