detect_outbreak_signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: a flag means 'high for this time of year' compared to prior years, not merely high in absolute terms. This is beyond what the name/schema convey. It does not mention side effects or edge cases, but the read-only analytical nature is implicit.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact, well-organized argument list, and ends with a single clarifying interpretation note. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the absence of annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter meanings, and the seasonal baseline nuance. It does not mention usage alternatives or data limitations, but for a focused detection tool it is nearly complete.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. The 'Args' section adds meaningful semantics: province is case-insensitive, lookback_weeks specifies a default of 12, and sigma is explained as standard deviations above the baseline. This goes well beyond the raw schema properties.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Flag recent weeks running above the same-calendar-week seasonal baseline.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like compare_provinces, list_provinces, get_incidence_history, and forecast_incidence by focusing on seasonal anomaly detection.

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 implies a usage context (detecting outbreak signals via seasonal comparison) but provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. Sibling tools are not referenced, so an agent would rely on the purpose statement alone to infer when to apply it.

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