get_crash_details

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does say the tool 'Returns complete crash record' and enumerates included content, but it does not disclose behavior for missing CUIDs, error cases, data freshness, or any access restrictions. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loads the primary purpose, and every phrase adds value (specific identifier, record contents). There is no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context by enumerating the major return categories. However, it does not mention behavior for invalid or missing CUIDs, which would make it fully complete.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage with a clear description and example for 'cuid'. The tool description expands the acronym but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches full details for a specific Colorado crash using a CUID, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('crash by CUID'). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_crashes and get_nearby_crashes, which focus on discovery rather than single-record retrieval.

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 conveys that the tool is for retrieving a single, known crash via CUID, making the use case clear. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, such as searching by criteria first, so it stops short of a 5.

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