fbi_nibrs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that. The description adds context about data complexity (demographics, weapon types) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or permissions beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value (purpose + content detail/examples). No wasted 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 tool has six parameters, but the description only elaborates on offense codes. It omits guidance on the difference between counts and totals, how to specify state vs agency (state/ori), or typical usage patterns. Schema descriptions partially compensate, but a user would benefit from more 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds example offense codes, which supplements the schema's enum list, but does not explain other parameters like 'type' (counts vs totals) or the distinction between state and ORI. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 it retrieves NIBRS data from the FBI, specifies it is more detailed than summarized UCR data, and lists specific data fields (victim/offender demographics, weapons, etc.). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools 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 implies it is for detailed incident data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fbi_crime_summarized for summary counts). No 'when-not' or direct alternative naming is provided.

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