fbi_arrest_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that the tool 'Returns counts or totals broken down by year, age, sex, race, ethnicity.' This gives the agent a concrete expectation of the output shape, which is valuable because there is no output schema. It also specifies the scoping behavior (national/state/agency). 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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, the second gives key offense-code examples, and the third states the output breakdown. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, and the description provides a solid overview but leaves gaps. It does not explain how to request national-level data versus state/agency level (implicitly omitting state/ori, but not stated), nor does it clarify the difference between 'counts' and 'totals' beyond naming them. Date range and type parameters are documented in the schema, but their interaction with the returned breakdown could be clearer. These are meaningful gaps for correct invocation, making the description adequate but not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by humanizing offense codes: '11' (murder), '20' (rape), '30' (robbery), '50' (aggravated assault), '150' (drug abuse), and noting '40+ more.' It also clarifies the meaning of the level parameters by stating that data can be at national, state, or agency level, which maps to state and ori. This extra context helps an agent select the correct offense code without opening the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get arrest statistics from the FBI.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like fbi_crime_summarized and fbi_expanded_homicide by focusing on arrest statistics and naming the levels (national, state, or agency). It also lists the offense codes and output breakdown dimensions, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when arrest statistics at national, state, or agency level are needed, with offense-code filtering and demographic breakdowns. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusions (e.g., 'use fbi_crime_summarized for summarized crime counts'), so it stops short of the 'explicit when-not' tier. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer suitability.

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