get_nibrs_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: partial-year flagging via a top-level '_partial_years' key and that rates are unweighted averages over available months. These are genuinely useful and not derivable from the schema. But it omits permissions, error behavior, pagination/rate limits, and whether results are cached.

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?

A single summary sentence followed by a structured Args block mirroring the schema. Front-loaded purpose with parameter detail in a scannable format. Slightly verbose in repeating schema field names, but the added semantics justify the length.

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, no annotations, and an output schema already present, the description covers parameter semantics well and adds behavioral context about partial years. It stops short of describing auth requirements, error cases, or how the output is shaped, but the output schema reduces that need.

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, and it does: it explains offense codes with examples, level values, date format (mm-yyyy), data_type semantics, state/ori conditionality on level, and aggregate behavior. This substantially covers 8 parameters. It's not a 5 only because some ancillary parameters (e.g., defaults interplay, null handling for state/ori) are not fully spelled out.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetching NIBRS incident-based crime data across 70+ offense types. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_summarized_crime_data or get_crime_trends by naming NIBRS specifically, though it doesn't explicitly say how it differs from get_nibrs_estimation.

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?

It points the agent to get_reference_data for the full offense list, which is a useful routing hint. However, it provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_nibrs_estimation or other crime-data siblings, leaving the agent to infer boundaries.

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