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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: it is 'free, no key needed' (auth requirement) and discloses that responses include confidence and a data-quality gate, which matters for interpreting results. It stops short of describing pagination or limits, but adds solid value beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the return contents, with no filler. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but each item (index, expected count, year change, neighborhood spread) carries information an agent needs to judge fit.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does so by listing the summaries, crime metrics, time-of-week breakdown, confidence, and quality gate. Combined with annotations and full parameter coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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% and the single place_id parameter is already documented with a concrete example ('tx/houston') and GEOID alternative. The description adds only that the place is city-level, which is marginal over the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('city-level crime indexes for a place') and enumerates the payload: four summaries, 16 crimes, time-of-week, confidence, and the data-quality gate. The 'city-level' qualifier implicitly separates it from finer-grained siblings like place_block_groups, but no sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the per-place overview tool versus crime_index (single index) or place_block_groups (sub-city geography), but the description contains no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative.

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