cdc_drug_overdose

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 known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data includes death rates by state, sex, race, and age groupaine and the time range. It does not disclose pagination or output format, but given the annotations cover mutation risks, this is a reasonable 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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and time range; the second adds contextual value (breakdowns and use case). Everything earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 read-only, no-required-parameter list tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core purpose, data scope (year range, breakdowns), and a key use case. It does not detail output format or caveats like data completeness by state, but with no output schema required and annotations covering safety, this is not a significant gap. A 4 is fitting.

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%, so each parameter (sex, year, limit, state) is documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meanings, but it does mention 'state, sex, race, and age group' as result dimensions, which indirectly helps interpret the 'state' and 'sex' parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 'get[s] drug poisoning/overdose mortality by state (1999–2016)' with a specific verb, resource, and time range. It explicitly distinguishes itself from other CDC mortality tools (e.g., cdc_mortality_rates, cdc_causes_of_death) by naming drug overdose as the focus, and the additional breakdowns (sex, race, age group) further clarify the scope.

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 provides context for when the tool is relevant ('Critical for opioid crisis analysis'), which implies a use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like cdc_causes_of_death or cdc_mortality_rates, nor does it mention any exclusions. This is 'clear context, no exclusions,' earning a 4.

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