search_disease

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful safeguards: decision_support_only, verify_current_official_source, not_validated_for_hospital_deployment, not_pre_submission_storage, and 'do not enter patient data'. These are valuable but expressed as cryptic code-like flags that are not explained.

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 very short and front-loaded with the action. The semicolon-separated flags are compact and relevant, though somewhat cryptic, and there is no filler content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format details are covered elsewhere, but the description omits query semantics, when to use this tool versus sibling search tools, and explanations of the boolean flags. These gaps make the tool hard to invoke correctly and confidently.

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?

There is one required string query with no schema description (0% coverage). The description does not explain expected query format, values, or examples; 'do not enter patient data' only adds a constraint, and 'Search CDC rows' only implies free-text searching. This is insufficient compensation for the absent schema documentation.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Search CDC rows'), and the tool name adds the disease domain. However, 'CDC rows' is somewhat generic and does not name any sibling search tools, so the agent must infer the disease focus.

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 when-to-use language, no exclusions, and no reference to alternative sibling tools. The only usage-related text is the Chinese warning not to enter patient data, which is a constraint rather than guidance for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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