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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It usefully adds 'current,' 'Keyless,' and 'official FBI data,' but it doesn't disclose output format or pagination behavior.

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 short sentences deliver the subject, the returned data, and the access model with no filler. The key facts are front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the definition is mostly sufficient, but the description's 'top-ten list' sits awkwardly with `page_size` allowing up to 20, and it doesn't clarify how `page_size` interacts with the ten-fugitive list. It also doesn't describe the response container/format, though there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 only parameter, `page_size`, is fully documented in the schema ('How many to return (default 10, max 20)'), so the description does not need to restate it. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives) and the action ('Returns the current top-ten list with reward, warning, and image for each'). It is specific enough to understand what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools `get_wanted` and `search_wanted`.

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 description implies its use case: get the current top-ten list rather than a filtered search. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of `get_wanted` or `search_wanted`, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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