cdc_weekly_deaths

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by noting the data is 'provisional' and 'updated weekly,' which implies data may be revised. It also discloses the availability of percent_of_expected_deaths for excess mortality detection, going beyond annotation basics.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core action. The all-caps emphasis on data currency is attention-grabbing but not wasteful. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description partially compensates by mentioning the percent_of_expected_deaths field. It clearly indicates the scope (weekly, by state, specific causes) and data coverage. However, it does not explicitly describe the full output structure (e.g., fields like year, week, state), which might leave some ambiguity for the agent.

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%, so all parameters (year, limit, state) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning; it only mentions a response field. Thus, 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 clearly states the tool retrieves weekly provisional death counts by state, specifically for COVID-19, pneumonia, influenza, and total deaths. It also mentions the key extra field percent_of_expected_deaths, making the purpose precise and unambiguous.

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 strong context by highlighting that this is the most current CDC mortality data, updated weekly and covering 2020–present. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool over others, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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