state_health

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is already marked as safe. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that data 'may include' certain indicators and that 'Data availability varies by state,' which warns the agent about conditional results. However, it does not describe what happens when a state has no data, how to handle pagination, or the structure of the response.

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 three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence gives the core action, the second clarifies content, and the third warns about variability. Every sentence earns its place, and key information is front-loaded.

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 and only high-level categories listed, the description doesn't indicate what a returned row looks like or how data is organized. The readOnlyHint and simple query parameters reduce the need for deep explanation, but the tool still lacks detail about result fields, especially since availability varies by state. It is marginally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the exact output.

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%, so every parameter (state, q, limit, where) is minimally documented in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage examples for the parameters; it relies entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline for high coverage but doesn't enhance it.

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 the tool's function: 'Query health indicator data for a US state.' It enumerates example data types (disease rates, overdose deaths, infant mortality, immunization, hospital data), making its scope concrete and distinguishing it from sibling state_* tools like state_crime or state_education.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't name any sibling tools (e.g., CDC health tools or other state_* categories) or explain when one should be chosen over another. The only caveat, 'Data availability varies by state,' hints at a limitation but does not offer selection advice.

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