get_revisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful trait — the first call for a state downloads revision history and may take a minute, implying per-state caching — but says nothing about read-only semantics, result ordering, or failure behavior.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the output shape, the second front-loads the latency caveat before the agent commits. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists and parameter documentation is complete, so the description only needs to frame intent and cost — both are covered. The one remaining gap is not positioning this against the sibling tools that answer related revision questions.

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 week format, state code format, measure sourcing, pathogen enum meanings, and region_type semantics all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already structured, so the 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?

The description states a specific resource and scope: one week's value tracked across CDC releases, returning first value, latest value, and each change. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from a plain series fetch or an as-of snapshot, though it never names get_series or get_as_of to make the boundary explicit.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer 'use this when you need to see how a reported figure was revised.' There is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to siblings such as get_as_of or get_series, which cover adjacent questions about the same data.

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