gov_fbi_crime_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the $0.01 USDC per-call cost, which is valuable behavioral context, but it does not explicitly state read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or response format.

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?

Two short sentences cover purpose and cost with no redundant text. The information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 tells what the tool does and its cost, but omits parameter combination guidance, expected return structure (no output schema exists), and any usage caveats. For a simple query tool without annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 description merely lists parameter names without adding meaning. Since schema coverage is only 50% (from_year and to_year lack descriptions), the description should have clarified their semantics, but only hints at a 'year range' without details on inclusivity or optionality.

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 identifies the tool as the FBI Crime Data Explorer and states it provides offense counts by state and year range. This scoping distinguishes it from other government-related siblings like gov_query or gov_cms_open_payments, though it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieves').

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?

Usage context is implied by the domain (FBI crime data), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like gov_query. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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