fbi_expanded_property

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds meaningful context about the data source (Supplemental Return / Return A) and the nature of the output (value of stolen/recovered property, type, premises), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful behavioral detail about what the tool returns.

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 zero fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then lists the additional breakdowns, and finally specifies the applicable offense codes. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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 purpose, the data source, the output content, and the applicable offense types. It does not explain the 'type' parameter (counts vs totals) or how to filter by ORI/state, but those are clearly documented in the schema. Given the moderate complexity and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly without missing crucial context.

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 all parameters documented. The description repeats the offense codes (NB, NL, NMVT, NROB) and their meanings, but the schema already provides that. It does not add any new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already includes, so it stays at the baseline 3 for full 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 the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('expanded property crime details from the FBI'), listing concrete output breakdowns (value, type, premises). It differentiates from summarized counts and other FBI tools by naming the offense codes and the data source (Supplemental Return / Return A). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like fbi_crime_summarized and fbi_expanded_homicide.

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 explicitly mentions it provides 'additional breakdowns beyond summarized counts,' which implies using this tool when expanded detail is needed over aggregate data. It does not name alternative tools explicitly but implies the distinction from summarized crime data and limits scope to property crimes (burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, robbery), which is clear enough. It lacks explicit exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance but the context is sufficient.

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