fbi_lesdc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description needed to add behavioral context such as return format, year coverage, or handling of missing data. Instead, it mostly restates that the tool gets statistics and lists chart types, adding little beyond the annotations.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded: the primary purpose appears first, followed by a compact chart-type list. However, the list duplicates schema information and omits one enum value, so it is not as clean or self-contained as a top-tier description.

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?

For a simple two-parameter, read-only tool, the schema and annotations carry most of the weight, and the description is minimally adequate for selecting the tool. Still, it does not describe the response/statistics format, leaves out a valid chart type, and offers no usage context, so there are clear gaps an agent would have to resolve elsewhere.

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 baseline is 3, but the description's chart-type list is redundant with the enum and omits the valid value 'expfollowing'. It adds no extra meaning about what each chart type represents or how the year parameter behaves, and the omission makes it slightly misleading.

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') and names a concrete resource ('Law Enforcement Suicide Data Collection statistics'), so an agent can tell this tool is about LESDC data. The chart-type list further narrows the scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling FBI tools, so it is not a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus other FBI or crime-data tools, and no mention of prerequisites or fallback behavior. The chart-type list is not usage guidance; it is just a parameter enumeration. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and domain.

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