fbi_lesdc

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is read-only, so the description does not need to restate that. However, the description adds the list of chart types, which clarifies the scope of queries. It does not disclose response format, pagination, or any special constraints beyond the annotation, so it remains at a baseline level.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence and a useful list of chart types. The list is slightly lengthy but all items are legitimate enum values, so it earns its place. No redundant filler 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?

For a simple read-only statistics tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter domain. It lacks details on return values or example usage, but the provided annotations and schema fill most gaps, making it sufficiently complete for straightforward queries.

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%, with both 'year' and 'chart_type' described in the schema. The description reiterates the chart type enum values, which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The 'year' parameter is not elaborated in the description, so value is minimal; baseline 3 applies.

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 retrieves Law Enforcement Suicide Data Collection (LESDC) statistics, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It distinguishes from FBI siblings (fbi_agencies, fbi_crime_summarized) by naming this unique dataset and listing supported chart types, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many FBI sibling tools, the description does not explain when LESDC is appropriate or mention other FBI datasets for different statistics. The only implicit signal is the tool name and dataset name, which is insufficient for tool selection.

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