Police incidents near a location

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

The annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false/openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results combine aggregate offense counts with the most recent reports and identifies the data source (CMPD), but says nothing about data latency, rate limits, or geographic coverage limits beyond what the schema states.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second supplies natural-language query examples. Zero filler, and the most decision-relevant information (proximity-based incident data) comes 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?

With a rich annotation set, 100% schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description need not explain return values or safety. It is nearly complete, with the only material gap being the absent contrast against summarize_crime, which an agent must resolve on its own.

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 100%, so every parameter (days, limit, offense, location, radius_miles) is already documented in-schema with defaults, bounds and examples. The description adds only indirect hints (e.g. 'car break-ins' maps loosely to the offense filter, 'lately' to days), so a baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (retrieves CMPD police incident reports near a location) and even specifies the return shape: counts by offense plus the latest individual reports. The proximity scope ('near a location') implicitly separates it from the aggregate sibling summarize_crime, but it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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 two example questions ('is there much crime near 123 Main St?', 'any car break-ins near me lately?') give concrete usage context and hint at the days/offense parameters. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no routing between this tool and summarize_crime or the other *_near siblings, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from phrasing alone.

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