get_incidence_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It discloses case-insensitive province matching, optional date bounds, max_weeks cap with most-recent-first ordering, and the returned metrics (incidence per 1,000 and rainfall driver). This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't address error handling or side effects, which are minimal for a read-only history query.

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 compact and well-structured with an Args section and Returns statement. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return structures, but it still provides high-level return context. Parameter semantics and scope are adequately covered. A minor gap is the interaction between max_weeks and the date bounds, but this is not critical for a basic query 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 0%, so the description must explain each parameter. It does so fully: province with examples and case-insensitivity, start_week and end_week as ISO date bounds, and max_weeks as a cap with default and ordering. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and titles.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Return weekly malaria incidence history for one province.' This clearly specifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like compare_provinces, forecast_incidence, and list_provinces. The scope 'one province' also differentiates it from multi-province tools.

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 when to use this tool by stating 'for one province' and focusing on historical incidence. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear: this is for fetching history for a single province, not for comparison, forecasting, or outbreak detection. This is clear context without explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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