get_outcomes_for_crime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or safe. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if the persistent ID is invalid).

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 low parameter count and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It conveys the core functionality but lacks context on response format, possible error states, or any prerequisites. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'persistent_id' described as 'The 64-character unique identifier for the crime'. The description echoes 'by persistent ID' but adds no additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal value.

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 'Retrieve outcomes for a specific crime by persistent ID', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_street_level_outcomes' by specifying 'by persistent ID' and 'specific crime'. However, it could be more explicit about how this differs from similar retrieval tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_street_level_outcomes' or 'get_crimes_at_location'. No when-not-to-use information or prerequisites are provided.

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