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 search scope and output fields (name, register number, facility, release dates). However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, error handling, or pagination. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and time range, then succinctly covers input and output. 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 7 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a good overview of input combinations and return fields. It does not cover limits or error scenarios, but it is reasonably complete for a search tool.

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 only 14% (one parameter described). The description compensates by explaining the two search methods (lastName with optional filters, or inmateNumber) and provides an example format for inmateNumber. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's types and enum.

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 identifies the tool as a Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate search, specifies the time range (1982-present, current+released), and lists search methods. It distinguishes itself from other tools in the sibling list, which are mostly different government services.

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 implicitly tells when to use: when searching for federal inmates. It provides two search methods but does not explicitly state when to prefer one over the other or mention alternatives for state inmates. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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