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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral details: data is 'aggregated from monthly reporting', returns both state and national metrics, and states 'no auth required' and public domain. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three well-structured sentences plus a source attribution. It front-loads the verb and resource, then provides use case, coverage, and authentication details. No filler or redundancy; 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and thorough annotations, the description provides all essential decision-making context: what data is returned, geographic and temporal scope, source, and authentication. An agent can confidently decide to call this tool and interpret its results.

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 schema descriptions cover all four parameters thoroughly (state code format, year bounds, offense type enum). The description reinforces the date range capability but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score is 3.

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 states the tool retrieves state-level annual crime totals with national comparison, using the specific verb 'Retrieve'. It differentiates from sibling tools like fbi.crime.national_annual and fbi.crime.state_offenses by emphasizing the national comparison component, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Perfect for tracking state crime trends over time and comparing against the national picture'. It mentions geographic and temporal coverage but does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative tools. The context is specific enough to guide appropriate selection.

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