get_nibrs_estimation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. The description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, if there are rate limits, or any side effects. It focuses solely on parameter definitions, missing key behavioral 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 well-structured with a brief overview followed by an 'Args' section. Each parameter gets a clear, concise explanation. The length is justified by the complexity (8 parameters with conditions). No superfluous sentences, though the external reference to 'get_nibrs_data docs' could be integrated.

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 presence of an output schema (context signal: has output schema = true), the description need not cover return values. It thoroughly documents all 8 input parameters with constraints and defaults. The description is complete for the tool's complexity, covering all necessary input guidance.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the description must fully explain parameters. It does so exceptionally: provides examples for offense codes, lists exact level options, and clarifies conditional requirements (e.g., state, region, agency_type). This adds substantial value beyond the schema's bare property 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 retrieves NIBRS national crime estimates with breakdowns. It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'NIBRS national crime estimates'. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_nibrs_data, the context of 'estimates derived from incident data' implies an aggregated view, setting it apart from raw data retrieval.

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 detailed parameter conditions (e.g., state required when level='state'), which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_crime_trends or get_nibrs_data, nor does it mention when not to use it. The guidance is implicit through parameter requirements.

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