get_police_employment

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

With no annotations, the description conveys the nature of the data returned (counts by gender, rates) and implies a read-only operation via 'get'. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the behavioral scope is well-covered for a read 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 concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args list. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded.

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 parameter count (6) and the existence of an output schema, the description fully covers the input parameters' semantics. No additional context is needed for a read tool.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's meaning, format (e.g., yyyy), and required context (e.g., state for 'agency' level). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 law enforcement employee data, specifying officer/civilian counts by gender and rates per 1,000 population. This verb+resource is distinct from sibling tools (e.g., crime, arrest data).

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 implies usage for employment data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance on exclusions or context for selecting this over siblings.

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