check_reliability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavioral trait — that output includes plain-language caveats and spans three source types — but omits that this is a read-only operation, how missing/sparse sources are handled, and what happens when the requested window exceeds available hospital data.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and the source scope. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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?

The schema is fully documented and a rich output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. The description covers what is aggregated and the caveat framing, leaving only the 'recent' window semantics and cross-source confidence behavior lightly implicit — minor gaps for a read-only summary tool.

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 state, pathogen, weeks, and end all documented including defaults and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameters — notably it never clarifies that 'recent' is user-controlled via weeks/end — so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Summarize') and a specific resource ('recent data quality across hospital, ED, and wastewater sources') plus the output style ('plain-language caveats'). This clearly distinguishes it in kind from data-fetching siblings like get_series or get_revisions, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to consult before trusting a series, but the description never says when to call it versus get_series, get_revisions, or get_as_of. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing language.

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