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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that only reported crime is present, that non-reporting agencies are absent, how rate is computed (sum of monthly per-100k rates), and the cost (1 credit per call). It stops short of stating read-only behavior or describing the response payload, but the coverage caveats and cost are genuinely useful.

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?

A tight, front-loaded paragraph where every sentence adds information: purpose, level semantics, filter list, coverage probe, data caveats, and cost. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 7-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the level routing, filter guidance, coverage discovery path, data-quality caveats, and pricing. An agent can call it correctly without opening the schema.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the important axes: it names the four level values, the state/offense/year-range filters, and that town is a city-or-agency name lookup. The county parameter is only indirectly explained via level=county, leaving a small gap.

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 and resource ('Query the local Crime Radar statistics database') and pins down the data provenance (FBI Crime Data Explorer, annual counts and rates by offense). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like crime_case_report and crime_map_data.

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 what each level value selects (state totals, county roll-up of reporting agencies, town name lookup) and explicitly tells the agent to call level=coverage to discover what data is loaded. It gives strong in-tool routing but never contrasts itself against sibling crime tools, so no explicit exclusion.

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