Search Registered Offenders

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing pagination behavior, the per-page API key requirement, quota consumption of 1 call per page, radius defaults/caps, and precedence rules. The read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations align with a search operation, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail (quota costs, pagination) that the annotations don't cover.

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 dense, purposeful sentences that front-load the core purpose, then mode details, then usage/exclusion guidance, then pagination/quota mechanics. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 12-parameter tool with a rich output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers mode selection, parameter grouping constraints, precedence, defaults, caps, pagination, and API key/quota implications. The output schema presumably documents the result structure including distance, so the description need not restate return values.

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%, so all 12 parameters are documented. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explaining the radius default/cap, the 'three filters alone not accepted' rule (city/state/zipcode), location precedence, and name-mode requirements — clarifying how parameters are grouped beyond what individual schema descriptions provide.

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 the tool searches US registered offenders and immediately distinguishes two distinct modes (location vs name). The verb+resource are specific, and it differentiates from sibling get_crime_data by explicitly noting it's for registered-offender questions only.

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?

Exceptionally clear usage guidance: it explains the two modes (location vs name), states required conditions for each (name needs at least one of first/last/dob; location precedence over name), and explicitly says when NOT to use it ('for an overall safety grade use get_crime_data instead'). This names the alternative tool directly.

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