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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: which underlying datasets are aggregated and the depth of each history window (6y/10y/3y), which tells the agent how far back answers can reach. It does not mention pagination or response size limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: scope first, usage second, routing to the alternative last. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most decision-relevant content (what data and how far back) is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's burden. Given the zero-parameter surface and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to decide when this tool answers the question and when get_incidents or get_crime_year should be preferred.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description still communicates the implicit result dimensions (year, month, type, region) that shape what the agent can ask for, even though no argument surface exists.

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?

Names a specific resource (historical aggregates) and enumerates the exact datasets with their temporal windows: VPD crime by year/month/type, USGS M4+ quakes, GDACS events, plus report and live snapshot stats. It also explicitly carves itself away from get_incidents, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

States the selection condition directly ('Use for questions about patterns over time — crime trends, quake frequency, disaster cadence') and names the alternative tool plus the condition that routes there ('For what's happening right now, use get_incidents'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are explicit.

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