get_crimes_at_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It says 'retrieve', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is safe or non-destructive. No mention of rate limits, error conditions, or return format.

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?

Single sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy.

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 no output schema and 4 optional parameters, the description lacks details on return format, pagination, error handling, and parameter combination rules (e.g., mutual exclusivity of location_id vs lat/lng). Leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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%, giving baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining that the location can be specified by ID or by lat/lng coordinates, clarifying the optional relationship between parameters. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves crimes at a specific location, specifying two methods: by ID or by lat/lng coordinates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crimes_no_location (no location) and get_street_level_crimes (different type of crime 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor when to use location_id versus lat/lng. Does not explain prerequisites or trade-offs between the two location specification methods.

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