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.