fbi_law_enforcement_employees

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds that it shows staffing levels over time and includes sworn/civilian counts. However, it does not disclose important behaviors like what happens with no parameters (presumably national totals), output format, or mutual exclusivity of ori/state.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds informational value. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Reasonable for a read-only data lookup with rich schemas, but gaps remain: no output schema and no description of default scope, column details, or parameter interaction (e.g., ori requiring state). This leaves an agent uncertain about the result structure and about forming valid queries without further assumptions.

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 reinforces the param semantics by mapping national/state/agency levels to the query dimensions and time to year fields, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's own parameter 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 description uses a specific action ('Get') with a clear resource ('law enforcement employee data'), names the data categories (sworn officers, civilian employees), and specifies aggregation levels (national, state, agency). This differentiates it from sibling FBI tools like fbi_arrest_data or fbi_hate_crime.

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?

It implies when to use the tool (for employee staffing data over time) and at which levels, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The absence of an explicit national-vs-state selection rule leaves some usage ambiguity.

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