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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the content returned (priorities with action taken, team ranks/names, events), and the specific operational reason the boundary polygon exists. It does not state what happens if no lookup arguments are supplied, which matters given zero required parameters.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the return contents, then the sibling routing. Every clause carries information, though the middle enumeration of returned sections is long enough to slightly slow scanning.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and annotations cover the safety profile; params are fully documented in the schema. The only real gap is the absence of any statement about behavior when neither lookup mode is supplied, which is notable for a tool with zero required parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents lat/lng/force/neighbourhood_id in detail. The description earns above-baseline credit by explaining the intent of 'include' beyond the schema's 'Optional sections to load' — specifically that boundary is only for subdividing oversized neighbourhoods — and by clarifying how downstream search tools consume the neighbourhood.

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 ('Find') and resource ('police force and neighbourhood policing team'), and explicitly names both supported lookup modes: by lat/lng point or by force + neighbourhood_id. This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from the list/search siblings.

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?

Explains the two lookup paths and then routes the agent away from unnecessary use: the boundary in 'include' is 'needed only to split a neighbourhood too large to search into smaller polygons', and search_crimes/search_outcomes/search_stops 'take the neighbourhood directly through area neighbourhood'. This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance naming alternatives.

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