get_expanded_property_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains parameter dependencies, defaults, and the condition on aggregate. It does not disclose rate limits, idempotency, or data freshness, but the behavioral details are adequate for a data retrieval tool.

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 well-structured with clear headings and bullet points, but it is somewhat lengthy. Every sentence adds value; however, it could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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 8 parameters, 5 required, no enums, and presence of output schema, the description covers all necessary details: parameter explanations, dependencies, and return type hints (counts vs totals). It is complete for the tool's functionality.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully. It provides detailed explanations for all 8 parameters, including format examples (e.g., '01-2020'), allowed values (offense codes), and conditional requirements (state, ori). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 gets expanded property crime data with stolen/recovered property values, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like get_expanded_homicide_data by focusing on property crime.

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 explains when parameters are required (e.g., state for level 'state', ori for 'agency') and includes a note about aggregate only applying to data_type 'counts'. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough.

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