get_expanded_homicide_data

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does fairly well: it discloses that '_partial_years' flags years with fewer than 12 months and that rates in those cases are unweighted averages of available months, plus the constraint that 'aggregate' only applies to counts. It omits permission/auth or rate-limit context, but the retrieval-affecting behavior is substantially disclosed.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence and the args list is compact with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool, though the parenthetical detail in the aggregate note is slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description still usefully flags the '_partial_years' output key. Combined with full parameter documentation, the definition is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly; only cross-tool routing guidance is absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: every one of the 7 parameters gets meaning plus format guidance (mm-yyyy, two-letter abbreviation, ORI code, conditional requirements tied to 'level', enum-like values for level/data_type/aggregate). This is far beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) data') and enumerates the detail categories it returns (demographics, weapons, circumstances). It is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like get_summarized_crime_data, though it never explicitly names an alternative, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_summarized_crime_data or get_expanded_property_data. The parameter notes imply usage contexts, but the agent must infer the routing decision entirely on its own.

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