fbi_nibrs

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about what the data contains, but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or the difference between 'counts' and 'totals' outputs. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first identifies the source, the second contrasts with UCR and lists contained data fields, and the third provides concrete code examples. No filler, no repetition of schema details; information is front-loaded.

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 data's meaning and offense code format, which is helpful. But it omits guidance on the 'type' parameter's counts-vs-totals distinction and on how ori/state scoping interacts with the required offense parameter. Without an output schema, those gaps leave the agent with incomplete information about what request shape produces what result.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the NIBRS code format and mapping several enum codes to human-readable offense labels (e.g., '13A' = aggravated assault, '09A' = murder), helping an agent choose a valid offense value.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('NIBRS data from the FBI'), and explicitly contrasts with 'summarized UCR data' — which corresponds to the sibling tool fbi_crime_summarized. It also enumerates the data content (victim/offender demographics, relationships, weapons, location, time of day), so an agent can unambiguously identify the tool's scope.

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 phrase 'More detailed than summarized UCR data' gives clear comparative context: use this tool for granular incident-level data rather than aggregate UCR summaries. However, it stops short of naming the alternative sibling or stating explicit exclusions, such as when to choose fbi_arrest_data or fbi_hate_crime instead.

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