fbi_expanded_property

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by naming the data source (Supplemental Return / Return A) and the specific breakdowns available (stolen/recovered value, property type, premises). It does not describe return format, pagination, or other behavioral details, but the annotation lowers the burden.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds distinct value: the resource, the data granularity, and the available offense codes. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool's name.

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 data retrieval tool with a 100% covered schema, the description provides sufficient context for selection and invocation. It explains what makes this expanded data distinct from summarized data and enumerates the valid offense codes. It does not address the type parameter (counts vs totals), but the schema fully documents it, and no output schema exists to complicate understanding.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic value by expanding the offense codes into full crime names in prose, but this largely duplicates the schema's own parameter descriptions. No additional parameter behavior is explained.

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 purpose: retrieving expanded property crime details from the FBI, specifically Supplemental Return / Return A data. It distinguishes itself from related FBI tools by noting it provides breakdowns beyond summarized counts and lists the covered offense codes (NB, NL, NMVT, NROB).

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 conveys when this tool is appropriate by contrasting it with 'summarized counts' and outlining the available offense types. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use instructions, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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