get_use_of_force_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data scope and parameter dependencies (e.g., year required for summary). However, it does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or data source details. The behavioral traits are partially transparent.

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, starting with a clear purpose statement, followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. The front-loaded summary aids quick understanding.

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?

With 6 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema present, the description covers all parameters' roles and some constraints. However, it lacks guidance on valid parameter combinations and error conditions. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden for return value documentation, but additional context would improve completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description explains each parameter's meaning and constraints (e.g., location: 'national or two-letter state abbreviation'). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type definitions. However, some format details (e.g., year range) are missing.

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 'Get use of force data from law enforcement agencies' and specifies the scope: incidents resulting in death, serious bodily injury, or firearm discharge. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_arrest_data, which focus on different data types.

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 parameter requirements (e.g., which params are required for each report_type) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings. No 'when to use' or 'alternatives' section is present.

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