ntsb_query

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 useful behavioral detail about the return content (event details, injuries, probable cause) but does not disclose pagination behavior, potential limitations, or any other side effects. This is a reasonable addition beyond the annotation but not rich context.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by modes, return content, and examples. The examples are useful but take up space; still, every sentence contributes meaning, and the overall length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description compensates by explicitly stating what is returned (event details, injuries, probable cause). It also covers the main query parameters with examples. It could mention pagination behavior or the relationship to the aviation-specific sibling, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this query tool.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by offering concrete example values for mode and query, which illustrate how to construct valid queries and clarify the semantics of the 'query' parameter beyond the schema's 'Search text'.

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: querying NTSB investigation datasets by transportation mode. It enumerates the supported modes and describes the return content (event details, injuries, probable cause), and the examples differentiate it from the more specific sibling tool ntsb_aviation_accidents.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (querying NTSB investigation data by mode) with practical examples. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as pointing to ntsb_aviation_accidents for aviation-only queries, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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