fbi_law_enforcement_employees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's added value comes from revealing that the data is time-series and can be aggregated at three levels. This supplements the safety profile with useful behavioral context, though it does not describe response format or pagination.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds specificity about data types and levels, making it easy to scan.

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 tool is simple with all optional parameters and strong annotations, but the description does not explain how to request national versus state versus agency data in terms of parameters, nor does it describe the output format beyond 'shows staffing levels over time.' Since there is no output schema, this is a notable gap.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter (state, ori, to_year, from_year). The description only adds a high-level mention of 'national, state, or agency level' without explicitly mapping which parameters produce each level (e.g., omit both for national, provide state for state-level, provide ori for agency).

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('law enforcement employee data'), further specifying the data types (sworn officers, civilian employees) and scopes (national, state, agency). It also notes the temporal dimension ('over time'), making it clearly distinct from sibling FBI tools like crime summaries or arrests.

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?

It communicates the tool's scope (national, state, or agency level) and the nature of the data (staffing levels over time), giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, stopping short of fully guiding selection among siblings.

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