Get Crime Data & Safety Score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: quota consumption (1 call per key), the 90-day rolling window, 1000ft radius, and the free test exception. These operational details go beyond annotation coverage.

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 dense but front-loaded with the most important info (what it returns) before usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place. Slightly long but each clause conveys distinct value; could be trimmed slightly but nothing is filler.

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?

There is an output schema present, so return values are handled. The description covers inputs, constraints, exclusions, quota/auth, and a test path. For a moderately complex tool with 3 params and good schema coverage, this is near-complete. Minor gaps: no mention of response format details, but output schema covers that.

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 schema already documents all 3 parameters. The description adds the key constraint that address and lat+lng are mutually exclusive and the format example. This is useful but modest supplement; baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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 has a specific verb+resource ('Get Crime Data & Safety Score') and clearly states what it returns: a letter score, per-crime-type breakdown against national average, and incident history within 1000ft over a 90-day window. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming them and what they cover.

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?

Excellent when/when-not guidance. States use case ('is this address/neighborhood safe?'), explicit exclusions (demographics, income, rent, schools via get_neighborhood_data; offenders via search_offenders), input constraints (address XOR lat+lng, US only), and quota/API key requirements including a free test address.

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