fbi_arrest_data

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and description confirms it returns statistics. Description adds detail about return format (counts/totals broken down by year, age, sex, race, ethnicity), going beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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, no filler. Front-loaded with verb and resource, then key details about offense codes and return breakdown. Every sentence earns its place.

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 schema covers all 6 parameters, description adequately explains purpose, levels, offense codes, and return structure. Missing minor aspects like data recency or pagination, but overall complete for a data retrieval tool.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by listing specific numeric offense codes (e.g., '11' murder) and indicating there are 40+ more, giving context that goes beyond the enum list. Also clarifies the 'type' parameter (counts vs totals).

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'get', resource 'arrest statistics', and scope (national, state, agency). It implicitly differentiates from siblings by mentioning offense codes and demographic breakdowns, but does not explicitly distinguish from other FBI data 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?

Description provides context for usage (levels, offense codes, return types) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fbi_crime_summarized or fbi_expanded_homicide. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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