crime_near

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the data aggregation methodology, the NPA resolution via 311 request density, and the exact computation (sums CALL_COUNT by CALL_DESCRIPTION) — information that goes far beyond a simple read operation and gives the user a clear mental model of behavior.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: a one-line summary, a necessary methodological caveat, a concise Args list with defaults, and a Returns summary. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most essential fact first.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no required ones, and an output schema, but the description still provides complete context: it explains the data's nature, the resolution strategy, parameter meanings, and return fields. Even without the output schema, an agent would know what to expect. No gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description explains every parameter in Args, including defaults and special behaviors (e.g., 'the breakdown totals cover all matching months, not just the returned records' for limit). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 first line states the exact purpose: 'CMPD calls-for-service (patrol + domestic violence) near a point.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like homicides_near or service_requests_near by specifying the dataset and the spatial query nature.

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 gives explicit input guidance: 'Provide either address or both lat and lon.' It also explains the underlying data limitation (no incident-level geometry, monthly aggregate by NPA) which tells the user when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls 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.