UK Crime MCP

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a key constraint ('max 5') and the data source, but it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what happens if size exceeds the cap, or how requests are authenticated; the phrase 'Soft-Offer outbound is OFF' is too cryptic to add reliable behavioral clarity.

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 short and front-loads the free-peek limit and primary resource. Most of it earns its place, though the final fragment 'Soft-Offer outbound is OFF' is ambiguous and adds less clear value.

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?

For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential resource, source, and a result cap. It still leaves gaps around the size parameter and sibling-tool selection, but it is minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with a postcode.

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 postcode parameter is already documented in the schema with an example, and the description only restates that crime is found 'near a postcode.' The optional size parameter has no schema description and is not explained in the tool description; 'max 5' may hint at a cap but does not define size semantics.

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 identifies the resource and scope: street-level crime near a postcode from data.police.uk, with a free-peek limit. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings crime_pack and redeem_pack, but the core purpose is understandable.

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 phrase 'Free peek, max 5' implies this is a limited free discovery call, which gives some usage context. However, it never explicitly states when to use this instead of crime_pack or redeem_pack, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that this is a paid operation returning a Stripe Checkout URL from data.police.uk. However, it does not explain whether calling it charges the user, what auth is needed, what happens after checkout, or what 'Soft-Offer outbound is OFF' means.

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 four short sentences and front-loads the paid nature and return value. The final sentence ('Soft-Offer outbound is OFF') is cryptic and does not earn its place as clearly as the others.

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?

For a payment-initiating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits critical context: auth requirements, whether the checkout URL is the only return value, what 'size' controls, and how it relates to redeem_pack. It is too incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently without guessing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that 'postcode' is the location for crime data; it gives no format or validation rules, and the 'size' parameter is completely unmentioned.

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 concrete outcome: it returns a Stripe Checkout URL for a paid pack of street-level crime data near a postcode. The phrase 'Paid pack' distinguishes it from the likely free sibling crime_discover, though the word 'pack' itself remains vague.

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?

It signals that this is the paid path ('Paid pack', price £0.49) but never says when to use it instead of crime_discover or redeem_pack. No prerequisites, exclusions, or follow-up steps are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says nothing about side effects (does it grant entitlements or credit a pack?), idempotency on repeated redemption, error behavior for unpaid/invalid sessions, or required auth, all of which are essential for an unreversible-sounding redemption operation.

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?

It is short, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than efficiency; a single fragmentary sentence that reads like a heading and conveys almost nothing front-loaded.

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?

For a mutation-style tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description provides none of the context needed to invoke it correctly or interpret the result.

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% and the single required parameter session_id is completely undocumented in the description. The agent gets no indication that the identifier is a Stripe Checkout session ID, what format it takes, or how to obtain it.

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 text reads as a title fragment ('How to redeem...') rather than a statement of what the tool does. It gestures at the resource (a paid Stripe Checkout session) but never says the tool actually performs the redemption or returns anything, leaving the verb ambiguous.

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?

Mentioning 'paid' implies this only applies to completed checkout sessions, which is a faint usage cue. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling tools epc_pack or epc_discover, which are plausible alternatives an agent would need to disambiguate against.

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