fbi_agencies

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral detail by noting the grouping by county and the included fields (ORI codes, coordinates, NIBRS participation dates). It does not mention pagination or error handling, but for a simple one-parameter list tool, this is adequate.

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 core purpose and followed by return details and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value concisely (grouped by county with specific fields) and how to chain the results into other FBI tools. It does not detail every possible edge case or formatting nuance, but it is complete enough for a single-parameter list tool with strong annotations.

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 covers 100% of the parameters, including the 'state' description with examples. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 specifies the action ('List'), the resource ('law enforcement agencies in a U.S. state'), and the source ('FBI CDE'). It also enumerates the returned data (grouped by county, ORI codes, coordinates, NIBRS participation dates), distinguishing it from sibling FBI tools that focus on crime statistics or employee data.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to obtain ORI codes for querying agency-level data in other FBI tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to select this tool for enumeration tasks.

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