Return the top-N California law enforcement officers by editorial severity score (descending). Use for "worst officer" / "most-disciplined officer" / ranking questions. Optional agency filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| agency | No | Optional agency filter, e.g. "Riverside County Sheriff" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions the ranking order and optional agency filter, but does not disclose any side effects, limitations, or required permissions. It reads as a read-only query, but no additional behavioral context is given.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage guidance and optional filter. No redundant wording or unnecessary details.
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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and usage but does not describe the return format (e.g., officer fields, score details) or any edge cases like officers without scores. It is adequate for a simple ranking tool but lacks completeness for an agent relying solely on this text.
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 schema has 50% description coverage: 'agency' has a description, but 'limit' does not. The tool description only says 'Optional agency filter' and 'top-N', which does not compensate for the missing limit semantics (default 10, max 25, min 1). It adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 returns top-N California law enforcement officers by editorial severity score descending, and explicitly frames it for 'worst officer' / 'most-disciplined officer' / ranking questions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_officers or get_officer.
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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use for ranking questions'), but it does not mention alternatives like search_officers or get_officer, nor does it state when not to use this tool. This is clear context but lacks exclusions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_* retrieves specific records, search_* queries databases, top_* provides rankings, and list_* enumerates metadata. The overlap between search_cjp and search_cjp_documents is explicitly resolved in their descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscore separators: get_, search_, list_, top_. The pluralization of search_das vs get_da matches the function, and search_capost is a clear abbreviation.
15 tools is well within the ideal range for a public-records server covering four entity types. Each tool earns its place, covering retrieval, search, ranking, and metadata listing without unnecessary bloat.
The surface covers the full read-only workflow: discover databases, search records, retrieve full details, rank by severity, and navigate site pages. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of exposing California justice system records.