cdc_death_rates_historical

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the tool is safe and non-mutating. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the dataset scope (age-adjusted rates since 1900, specific causes), but it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or potential edge cases. With annotations covering safety, the description provides moderate added value.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, followed by a succinct cause list and usage hint. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence contributes value.

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 historical data query tool, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned (age-adjusted death rates), the covered causes, and the time span (120+ years). The parameters are fully described in the schema, and the readOnlyHint covers the safety profile, so the description is complete for the agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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%, with each parameter already having a description in the input schema. The description adds a small benefit by listing the cause enum values and expanding the CLRD abbreviation, but it largely duplicates the schema's parameter information, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('age-adjusted death rates for major causes'), and time scope ('since 1900'). It also lists the exact causes covered, making the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinct from CDC siblings that focus on other metrics or periods.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Great for long-term trend analysis — 120+ years of data'), which helps an agent select it for historical analyses. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a full usage exclusion.

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