Historical COVID-19 Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the data source (Johns Hopkins CSSE) but does not provide further behavioral details beyond what annotations offer. No contradiction.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value (what, returns, use case, source). No redundant information.

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?

Given the output schema exists (context indicates true), the description is sufficient. It covers the key return data, source, and use case, making it complete for a historical data retrieval tool.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions for 'country' and 'lastdays'. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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 gets historical time-series COVID-19 data for a country or globally, and specifies the return data types (daily case, death, recovery counts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like disease.covid.country and disease.covid.global by emphasizing 'historical' and 'time-series', making the purpose 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 mentions it is 'useful for trend analysis and longitudinal research', providing clear guidance on when to use it. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools implies differentiation for current data queries.

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