cdc_covid

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by noting the data ends in early 2023, which is critical for interpreting staleness. It also clarifies the state format (two-letter abbreviations). This goes beyond the annotation without being repetitive.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and data scope.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: data type (weekly case/death counts), geographic granularity (state), and temporal coverage (through early 2023). It does not describe response format, but given the simplicity, this is not a major gap.

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?

Both parameters (limit and state) already have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description's mention of state abbreviations is redundant with the schema's parameter description, so it adds minimal extra value beyond confirming the data context.

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 resource ('COVID-19 weekly case and death counts by state'), and adds precise scope ('data through early 2023'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling CDC tools like cdc_weekly_deaths (which likely covers deaths only) and cdc_causes_of_death.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need weekly COVID-19 case and death counts by state), but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It could improve by noting that other CDC tools cover different metrics or time frames, but that is left to the reader.

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