dallas_crime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds meaningful extra context: excluded record types (sexually-oriented offenses and juvenile-involved records), the data source (RMS data, 2014-present), and the authoritative publisher (City of Dallas Open Data). This goes beyond the safety profile already captured by 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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose and time range, then covers filter modes, default behavior, data omissions, and source. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.

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 read-only search tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when and how to call it, including scope, exclusions, and source authority. It could optionally mention response structure, but the functional semantics are clear.

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 all four parameters are already well-documented. The description adds only a high-level mention of filtering dimensions (offense, council district, address) without providing details beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Search Dallas Police reported incidents (RMS data, 2014-present).' It clearly differentiates this tool from the sibling tools like dallas_property or dallas_311 by specifying the crime dataset, geographic scope, and time range.

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 provides clear usage context: filtering by offense/keyword, council district, or address, and the option to pass no filters for the most recent reports. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is still concrete and actionable.

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