cdc_places_health

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds useful behavioral context: it specifies the data source methodology (BRFSS-based estimates), the output unit (crude prevalence percentage), and the full set of measures available. This goes beyond the annotation's minimal signal.

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 opens with the core purpose and then provides a comprehensive but organized list of measures. The list is lengthy, but every item is relevant and aids parameter selection, and the structure is clear with a final return-format statement.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema) and the readOnly annotation, the description is quite complete. It communicates the data source, available measures, and the nature of the return values. It could mention whether multiple years are covered or how pagination works, but these are not critical gaps.

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 schema describes all three parameters, but the description adds significant value by listing far more valid measure IDs than the schema's measure description and by clarifying that results are crude prevalence percentages. This helps the agent choose valid inputs and interpret output correctly.

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 the specific verb 'Get', identifies a clear resource ('county-level health indicators from CDC PLACES'), and defines the scope with 'Returns crude prevalence (%) by county'. This fully differentiates it from sibling tools like cdc_places_city by explicitly stating county-level granularity.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving county-level CDC PLACES health indicators, giving the agent a strong contextual signal. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., cdc_places_city for city-level data), so it falls short of a 5.

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