Browse FBI Wanted by Category

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by clarifying that results match the subject detail of fbiwanted.persons.search, which sets expectations about the response shape. It doesn't mention pagination behavior beyond the schema, but the annotations carry the main burden.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and enumerates categories; the second sentence ties it to the sibling tool for expectation-setting. Every word earns its place.

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 browse tool with a rich schema (100% coverage), an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention pagination defaults, but those are already in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat them.

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 three parameters thoroughly, including the category enum with human-readable expansions. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') with a clear resource ('FBI wanted posters by category') and enumerates the exact categories available. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling fbiwanted.persons.search by noting it returns the same subject detail, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use this tool: when browsing by category, and it references the sibling fbiwanted.persons.search for comparison. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or when to prefer the sibling search tool, leaving some inference to the agent.

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