foia_report

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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the tool's read-only nature is already disclosed. The description adds contextual behavior by specifying the content included in the report and the dependency on a valid abbreviation from foia_agencies. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides sufficient behavioral context beyond the structured hint.

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, each contributing value: purpose, data contents, and usage prerequisite. There is no redundant wording, and the main purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description lists several output categories (request volumes, processing times, backlog, exemption usage, compliance metrics), giving the agent a good sense of the return data. It also points to foia_agencies for the required input. Minor gaps like whether historical years are available are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already covers the parameter with 100% coverage, listing example abbreviations. The description enhances this by instructing 'Use foia_agencies first to find the correct agency abbreviation,' which tells the agent how to source a valid value. This extra guidance justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get annual FOIA report statistics for a specific federal agency.' It further enumerates distinct data categories (request volumes, processing times, backlog data, exemption usage, compliance metrics), making the tool's function concrete. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool foia_agencies, which focuses on agency identifiers.

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 provides direct usage guidance: 'Use foia_agencies first to find the correct agency abbreviation.' This establishes a prerequisite workflow and implies that this tool is used after obtaining the abbreviation. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use the tool, the guidance is clear and actionable, meriting a 4 rather than a 5.

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