Crime

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuine non-annotation context: only municipalities over 20,000 residents have their own figures, smaller places return the province's data, and the result itself indicates this fallback. That is exactly the kind of reliability caveat an agent needs.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the data content and ending with the coverage caveat. Dense but every clause (offence types, unit, comparison levels, publication threshold) adds information; only the long enumeration in the first sentence slightly taxes readability.

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 a single fully documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema that handles return values, the description supplies everything else needed: what is measured, the unit, comparison geographies, and the fallback for small places.

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 100% and the single 'place' parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema (INE codes, format variants, disambiguation with 'Name, Province'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (Interior ministry recorded crime) with the exact metric (offences by type, per 1,000 residents, YoY change, YTD), so an agent immediately knows what data it returns. No sibling tool covers crime statistics, so it is inherently distinguished from businesses, income, rents, demographics, etc.

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?

Usage is only implied by the data domain; there is no explicit 'use this when… / not for…' statement or named alternative. The coverage note (smaller places fall back to province figures) hints at scope but is a behavior caveat rather than routing guidance.

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