cdc_disability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the data source (BRFSS survey), which is useful. However, it does not describe pagination, default behavior when parameters are omitted, or output format. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the list of types. It's efficient with no fluff. It could be slightly improved by integrating the type list more naturally, but overall it is well-structured.

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 retrieval tool with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It covers the data source and types. Missing are usage guidelines (when to use vs. other CDC tools) and any note about default behavior when state is omitted (though that's in the schema). It doesn't explain return values, but no output schema exists. Slightly incomplete for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description lists disability types, but this duplicates the schema's description for disability_type. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is warranted.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get disability prevalence by state and type from BRFSS survey.' It specifies the resource (BRFSS) and the data returned (prevalence). The tool name and description distinguish it from other CDC tools, though it doesn't explicitly call out alternatives, so it loses one point.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. other CDC data tools (e.g., cdc_causes_of_death, cdc_places_health). The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. Context signals show many sibling tools, so this absence is a notable gap.

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