fbi_agencies

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only. Description adds value by detailing output structure (grouped by county, fields returned). No contradictions with annotations.

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: first states purpose and output, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words; front-loaded and efficient.

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?

No output schema but description adequately summarizes returned data (agencies, grouped by county, specific fields). Sufficient for a list tool; no missing critical details.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear description. Tool description does not add meaning beyond schema, which is acceptable given high coverage.

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 it lists law enforcement agencies by state, grouped by county, with specific data (ORI codes, coordinates, NIBRS dates). It differentiates from sibling FBI tools by explicitly noting ORI codes can be used to query other 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?

The description advises using ORI codes from this tool for other FBI tools, providing clear context on when to use it. It lacks explicit exclusions but effectively positions the tool as a prerequisite for agency-level queries.

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