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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important provenance and interpretation constraints: revisions are as-published versions not corrections, DHS and CBP use different definitions and are never merged, and no rates or causation are provided. This is exactly the kind of contextual nuance annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loads the primary national totals before secondary DHS-table and revision-log caveats. It is dense and somewhat run-on, but every clause carries relevant data-provenance or interpretation information rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still provides a thorough account of what is returned: yearly totals by force type, personnel counts, assault incidents, source files and dates, optional revision logs, DHS table status, and definitions caveats. An agent has enough context to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

The only parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that fiscal_year also brings that year's revision-log entries and by reinforcing that those entries are as-published versions, not corrections.

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 states a specific resource and scope: national yearly totals from CBP use-of-force and assault files, broken down by force type, personnel, and assault incidents. The explicit 'National yearly totals' scope distinguishes it from the area-level sibling tool without needing to name it.

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 gives clear context for when this national/yearly dataset applies, including the FY2021+ range and the partial-current-year label. It does not explicitly name the sibling border_force_area as the alternative for sub-national data, so it stops short of a 5.

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