fbi_expanded_homicide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds content detail (demographics, weapons, circumstances) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like pagination, response size, or interaction between parameters. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, starts with the verb and resource, and includes all essential information (data source, content, levels) without redundancy. No unnecessary words.

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 description covers the core purpose and data content, but it does not explain how to request each level (e.g., which parameter to use for national vs. state vs. agency) or how parameters interact when multiple are provided. With 5 optional parameters and no output schema, this leaves some ambiguity, though the schema helps fill gaps.

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%, and each parameter (ori, type, state, to_year, from_year) already has a description. The description's mention of 'national, state, or agency level' hints at parameter usage but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 expanded homicide data from the FBI and lists content areas (victim/offender demographics, weapons, circumstances). It also indicates levels (national, state, agency), which distinguishes it from sibling FBI tools like fbi_arrest_data or fbi_crime_summarized. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 useful context about what data is included and the availability at different geographic levels, which tells an agent when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast against alternatives (e.g., 'use this instead of fbi_crime_summarized for homicide details'), and it does not specify conditions for choosing national vs. state vs. agency level.

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