cdc_nutrition_obesity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds useful context about the data scope (adult obesity, physical inactivity, fruit/vegetable consumption) and the breakdowns available. However, it does not mention any behavioral nuances such as pagination, default limits, or how the returned data is structured.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists the topic values and breakdown dimensions. It is well front-loaded and every word 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 query tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description, combined with the schema and annotations, covers the essentials: what data it returns, the allowed topics, and the optional state filter (via schema). It does not provide an example or clarify output shape, but given the simplicity and the presence of the schema, it is nearly complete. A small gap is the lack of any note about the 'limit' parameter's effect, but that is covered in the schema.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema: the topic values ('Obesity', 'Physical Activity', 'Fruits and Vegetables') are exactly repeated from the schema. According to the rubric, when coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not go beyond the schema.

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 specific action ('Get') and the resource (BRFSS data) with the three health metrics. It also lists the breakdown dimensions (state, race, age, income, education) and the topic values, making it distinct from sibling CDC tools like cdc_mortality_rates or cdc_places_health, which cover different indicators.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling CDC health tools (e.g., cdc_places_health, cdc_life_expectancy), and the description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons. The topics and dimensions imply usage context, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use'.

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