fbi_hate_crime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds value by detailing the output contents (incidents broken down by bias category, offense type, etc.), which goes beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded with the action 'Get hate crime data' and scope 'at national, state, or agency level.' Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 explains the output breakdowns (bias category, offense type, victim type, etc.) and mentions optional filtering by bias code. However, it does not explain the 'type' parameter (counts vs totals) or the year range parameters beyond schema descriptions, missing some completeness for the 6-parameter tool with no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description provides example bias codes (e.g., '12'=Anti-Black) but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 gets hate crime data from the FBI at national, state, or agency level, specifying the breakdowns (bias category, offense type, etc.). The name and description distinguish it from sibling tools like fbi_arrest_data or fbi_crime_summarized.

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 implies usage for hate crime data retrieval but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other FBI tools or provide alternatives. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is given.

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