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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return content: rates, a safety index, and a 12-month incident breakdown. However, it says nothing about geographic coverage limits, data freshness/lag, or rate limits — relevant for a hyperlocal crime dataset where coverage varies by country.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler — the resource and the three data components come first, the accepted locator forms last. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a complete statement, but nothing is wasted.

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 low-risk, single-parameter read lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent what data comes back and in what granularity. Coverage region and data freshness are the only meaningful omissions, which are minor for this tool shape.

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% with a single fully documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by postcode or GPS' wording aligns with the schema's accepted formats but adds no format or constraint detail beyond it.

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 names a specific resource (street-level crime rates, safety index scores, 12-month incident breakdowns) and its scope (hyperlocal, by postcode or GPS). It is clearly distinguishable from the nearest siblings (getHyperlocalWeather, getRealEstateStats, getParcelZoningInfo) by domain, though it never names or contrasts with an alternative.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implicit guidance is the 'by postcode or GPS' scope, which the agent must infer.

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