fbi_crime_summarized

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns year-by-year data with counts and rates, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or data granularity details, which would be helpful but are not critical given the read-only nature.

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 with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the offense list is compact and directly relevant. Every word 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?

With no output schema, the description gives a high-level idea of the return shape (year-by-year counts and rates). It covers the tool's scope, offense categories, and level of data. It omits any caveats about data availability or aggregation rules, but given the schema and annotations, it is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, with each parameter documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it merely restates the offense codes that are already in the enum. It does not explain the relationship between ori and state, or the year range defaults, which are already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves summarized UCR crime data from the FBI at national, state, or agency level, and enumerates the 10 offense categories. This is a specific verb-resource-scope combination that distinguishes it from sibling FBI tools like fbi_arrest_data or fbi_hate_crime.

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 a clear context (summarized UCR crime data) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like fbi_nibrs or fbi_expanded_property. It implies usage for summary statistics, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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