state_crime

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description's verb 'Query' aligns with that. It adds valuable caveat 'Data varies by state' and 'may include...', warning users of inconsistent data availability across states—useful beyond the annotation.

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?

Three efficient sentences: purpose, variability warning, and filter options. No redundancy or filler; information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

No output schema, but the tool is a straightforward query with thorough parameter documentation and a clear caveat about data variability. Sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke, though it stops short of detailing return structure or pagination.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds general filter categories (year, jurisdiction, full-text) but does not enrich meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Begins with 'Query crime statistics for a US state' – a specific verb, resource, and geographic scope. The follow-up enumerates data types (violent crime, property crime, arrests) and granularity (county/jurisdiction), clearly distinguishing it from broader state_* siblings and crime-specific FBI tools.

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?

Conveys clear usage context: querying state-level crime data with filters for year, jurisdiction, and full-text search. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., fbi_crime_summarized) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the scope is evident.

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