cdc_disability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. It adds a data source ('BRFSS survey') and lists types, but does not disclose behaviors like pagination, return format, or any limitations. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description's added context is minimal but adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and the list of types is directly useful for parameter selection. 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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return format or whether data is aggregated by year. However, the tool is a simple filtered lookup with clear inputs, so the description covers the core purpose but leaves some ambiguity about output expectations.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (limit, state, disability_type) having a description. The description merely repeats the disability_type choices already in the schema, adding no new semantic value beyond what is structured.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Get disability prevalence by state and type from BRFSS survey.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and enumerates valid disability types. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to similar CDC tools. There is no context about whether this is the right choice for particular queries.

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