fbi_expanded_homicide

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about data content and level availability, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format, default level when no parameters are provided, or any limitations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 three concise sentences that immediately state the purpose, data contents, and levels. There is no filler, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the high-level purpose and data content but does not clarify important operational aspects like the difference between 'counts' and 'totals' (the type parameter), how to request national-level data (since no parameters are required), or potential parameter combinations. Annotations and schema fill some gaps, so it is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 5 parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds no specifics about parameters beyond mentioning available levels, which somewhat echoes the state and ori fields. With full schema coverage, the baseline 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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get expanded homicide (Supplementary Homicide Report) data from the FBI.' It also lists the content coverage (victim/offender demographics, weapons, circumstances) and available aggregation levels, which distinguishes it from sibling FBI tools like fbi_crime_summarized or fbi_expanded_property.

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 when to use the tool (for expanded homicide/SHR data) and mentions available levels (national, state, agency), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not guidance. It also does not explain how to select each level via parameters, leaving the usage context mostly implicit.

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