cdc_causes_of_death

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the data span (1999–2017) and sample causes, but it does not disclose behavioral details like whether causes are ranked, how many causes appear per state/year, or the output record shape. This is moderate value beyond annotations, hence a 3.

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 two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does; the second adds the time range and representative examples. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple, read-only filtered query tool with fully documented parameters and strong safety annotations, the description covers the data source, time range, and example content well enough for an agent to make an informed first call. The main gap is the lack of a stated output shape or ranking semantics, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity and optional filters.

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%: each parameter (year, limit, state) has a meaningful description, including value ranges, defaults, and guidance to omit for all states/years. The tool description does not add parameter semantics beyond restating the 'by state and year' dimensions, so with high schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('leading causes of death in the U.S. by state and year'), giving a clear sense of the tool's function. It is distinct from many sibling tools, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with closely related CDC tools like cdc_mortality_rates or cdc_death_rates_historical, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives data range and examples of causes, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing advice such as 'use cdc_mortality_rates for rates per 100,000' or 'use cdc_causes_of_death for ranked cause lists.'

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