gov.inmate-locator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the time coverage and that it searches both current and released inmates. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior for no results, which could be important for an agent. 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 concise at two sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose and covers all key aspects without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (name, register number, facility, dates). It also explains the search options and time range. The information is complete for a tool of this complexity with 7 parameters.

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 has 7 parameters with only 14% description coverage (inmateNumber). The description adds significant value by explaining the relationship: lastName is primary with optional filters, or inmateNumber for exact lookup. This clarifies usage beyond the raw schema properties.

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 is for Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate search, specifying the time range (1982-present), population (current + released), search criteria (lastName + optional fields or inmateNumber), and return fields (name, register number, facility, dates). This is a specific verb-resource pair with no ambiguity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no explicit usage guidelines, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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