search_crashes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the database size (500,000+ records) and that it returns key fields (location, date, severity, injuries, fatalities, contributing factors), giving some transparency about scope and output. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, data freshness, or any limitations beyond the implied read-only nature of a search. It neither contradicts nor enriches beyond basic function, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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-loaded with the primary purpose in the first few words, and each sentence adds distinct value: the first defines the search scope, the second provides context on data magnitude and return fields. 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 read-only search tool with six well-documented schema parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview: it covers the search dimensions, dataset scale, and return fields. It falls short only in not explicitly differentiating from closely related sibling tools and not specifying how filters combine (e.g., whether all are required or optional), though the schema indicates all are optional. Given the tool's moderate complexity and strong schema coverage, the description is nearly 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning—it groups the filters into categories (location, date range, crash type, severity) but does not introduce syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema's own descriptions. It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none, but it also doesn't add significant value beyond the schema.

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's function with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Colorado crash records'), and enumerates filter dimensions (location, date range, crash type, severity). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_crash_details or get_nearby_crashes, though the broad filter set implies a search-over-details distinction.

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 implies usage (when you need to search crash records by filters) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives like get_crash_details for individual crash details or get_nearby_crashes for location-based proximity, leaving the agent to infer relative suitability from the name and filter set.

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