crime_hotspots

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'Top colonies/alcaldías by crime count' and lists parameters, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or output format. For a data query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a concise 'Args:' section detailing each parameter. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting with bullet-like parameter explanations enhances readability while maintaining brevity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and all parameters semantically. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could improve by adding more behavioral context or usage guidelines to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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. It effectively adds meaning for all four parameters: 'year' specifies filtering by 'anio_hecho' with a default; 'alcaldia' notes it's optional and requires UPPERCASE; 'category' gives an example; and 'top_n' explains it controls row count. This provides clear semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it could include more on valid values or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Top colonies/alcaldías by crime count (FGJ carpetas).' This specifies the verb ('Top'), resource ('colonies/alcaldías'), and data source ('FGJ carpetas'), making it distinct from siblings like 'aggregate' or 'query_records'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools beyond the server's current list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, compare it to siblings like 'aggregate' or 'query_records', or specify scenarios where it's preferred. The usage context is implied through parameter descriptions but not explicitly stated.

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