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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It adds useful context such as the default year behavior and the output categories, but it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects. Since the tool is a read-only statistics lookup, the risk is low, but the transparency is incomplete.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear purpose statement, then lists return contents, and finally documents parameters. Each sentence adds value with no redundant or filler text.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, output content, and default behavior. An output schema exists, reducing the need to detail return structure. It lacks discussion of error conditions or data limitations, but for a simple fetch tool with two parameters, it is nearly complete.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates. It explains the state parameter with both FIPS and abbreviation formats and examples, and explains the year parameter's default behavior. This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the basic schema types.

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 specifies the exact action ('Get fatal crash statistics') and the resource ('NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)'), and lists specific returned data (fatalities, by person type, alcohol-involved). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_complaints or get_recalls.

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 intended use is implied by the resource and output content, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, relying on the user to infer based on the data type.

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