cdc_weekly_deaths

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data is provisional, updated weekly, covers 2020-present, and includes excess mortality metric. No contradiction with annotations.

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 plus a line, conveying key information without redundancy. The all-caps sentence is somewhat shouty but still concise. Overall 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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the response structure beyond mentioning death categories and percent_of_expected. For a simple data retrieval tool, this may suffice, but more detail on output format would enhance completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for its three parameters (state, year, limit), so the schema already provides necessary semantics. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema offers.

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 for specific causes (COVID-19, pneumonia, influenza, total). It uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling CDC mortality tools, which limits clarity.

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 mentions that the data is the most current and includes percent_of_expected_deaths for excess mortality detection, giving a hint of when to use it. But it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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