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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses crucial runtime behavior: anonymous/free-key calls get a ~15-minute delayed shared snapshot, while a pro/business x-api-key unlocks real-time refresh and higher limits. This goes well beyond the schema and directly addresses auth, rate, and freshness concerns.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, filter summary second, auth/refresh caveat last. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 9-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description plus the 100% schema coverage covers data scope, filtering, limits, auth, and freshness. It does not explicitly describe the returned incident shape or default unfiltered behavior, but these are minor gaps given the detailed schema and clear tool name.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's filter summary loosely maps to the schema ('group' vs 'groups', 'severity' vs 'minSeverity') and omits q, limit, and refresh, so it adds little semantic value beyond the already-detailed parameter descriptions.

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 identifies the resource ('live incidents from all feeds plus manual reports') and lists its main filtering capabilities, so an agent knows it returns aggregated incidents. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like get_news or get_crime_year, though the wording makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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 use when the agent needs merged live incidents and gives useful auth context (anonymous/free-key vs pro/business), but it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or route to alternative tools such as get_crime_year for historical data.

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