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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds useful context by naming the source (api.fbi.gov), confirming it is public US Government data, and listing the fields returned for each match. This goes beyond the annotations without contradictory claims.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action and filters, the second states the return fields and source. It is front-loaded and every clause 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 read-only annotations, fully documented optional parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete for a safe search tool. It could be improved by explicitly steering agents away from sibling tools or noting pagination behavior, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains all seven parameters. The description merely restates a subset of the filter fields (name, field office, sex, race, person classification) without adding new semantic detail, which fits the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 searches the FBI Wanted API for wanted persons, fugitives, and missing/victim listings, and lists the available filters. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fbiwanted.persons.by_category and fbiwanted.persons.recent by framing this as a general search tool, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this search tool versus the sibling tools fbiwanted.persons.by_category or fbiwanted.persons.recent. Usage is only implied through the verb 'Search' and the filter list, so an agent has to infer the appropriate selection.

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