fbi_use_of_force

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful context about the incident criteria (death, serious injury, firearm discharge) and the two data levels. It does not cover response format or pagination, but with the annotation present, the additional behavioral context is adequate for a 4.

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, each contributing essential information: purpose, data coverage, and scope usage. It is concise, well-ordered, and free of filler.

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 moderate 3-parameter tool with comprehensive schema descriptions and a readOnlyHint, the description effectively fills in the data domain and scope selection details. It does not describe the return shape, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the query, this is not a critical gap.

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 repeats the scope guidance already present in the schema without adding new semantic details for year or quarter. No extra value is provided beyond what the structured schema documents.

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 'Get Use of Force data from the FBI' and defines the specific data coverage (incidents resulting in death, serious injury, or firearm discharge). It naturally distinguishes itself from other FBI tools by focusing on the unique Use of Force dataset and the federal vs national scope levels.

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?

Provides explicit instructions for choosing scope values: 'Use scope=\'federal\' for federal agencies, \'national\' for all agencies participation data.' This gives clear context for when to use each parameter, but it does not mention alternative tools or conditions for not using this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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