Query Public Health Data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavioral facts: data provenance (BRFSS/CDC PLACES), coverage breadth (500+ cities, 30+ measures), and no API key required. It omits error behavior and rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and source, then measure list, then usage hint. Efficient overall, though the trailing 'Great for' sentence leans slightly promotional.

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 exists, but the description enumerates the returned measure categories, which largely compensates. Provenance and coverage are also covered; only return format specifics (units, aggregation level) are missing.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'city' parameter, so the schema already documents the format and examples. The description adds nothing beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource (get public health indicators) and names the data source (CDC PLACES) plus scope (US city). It clearly distinguishes from domain-different siblings like query_employment or query_weather, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 'Great for' line implies usage contexts (community health understanding, social media anchoring) but offers no explicit when-not conditions and no routing to alternatives like query_city_data or query_demographics.

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