uk_police_crimes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but does not disclose the well-known characteristic of this dataset (crime data lags by roughly two months), pagination or result caps, or what the response contains. It adds no behavioral context beyond the source name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core action and scope come first. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why behavioral context is thin.

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 three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations it leaves gaps around data recency and result limits that an agent would benefit from knowing before calling.

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 latitude, longitude, and the YYYY-MM date parameter are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, range, or radius meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Get reported crimes") and scopes it to "a UK location" and to the data.police.uk source. It implicitly distinguishes itself from uk_police_forces (which lists forces), but the description never names or contrasts that sibling, so the caller must infer the distinction.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the related uk_police_forces tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must guess that this is a location-scoped query rather than a force-level one.

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