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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: fragment-based matching semantics, the disambiguation rule when multiple agencies match, and the data source and license. It does not describe result shape or edge cases like zero matches.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then matching behavior, then disambiguation, then licensing. Three tight sentences with little waste, though the CC BY-NC-SA attribution clause is metadata rather than decision-relevant content for an agent.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the breakdown dimensions (year, race, armed_with), giving the agent a sense of the return shape. Read-only annotations cover safety, and both parameters are fully documented. Missing only edge-case behavior such as no-match handling.

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%, and the schema descriptions already state that state is a two-letter USPS code for disambiguation and that agency accepts a name fragment. The description's matching example ('Sacramento Police') largely restates the schema example, so it adds little beyond the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: one agency's fatal-shooting count with a breakdown by year, race, and armed_with, sourced from the WaPo Fatal Force roster. It implicitly separates itself from aggregate siblings (police_shootings, police_shootings_summary) by emphasizing 'one law-enforcement agency,' but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 explains how to invoke the tool (match on a name fragment; pass state to disambiguate multiple matches), which is practical invocation guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over police_shootings or police_shootings_summary, so selection between siblings is left to inference.

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