Query City Public Data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the geographic restriction ('US only'), the open data portal source (Socrata), the constrained set of cities and categories, and the return shape ('recent data with category breakdown and sample records'). However, it says nothing about rate limits, authentication requirements, error behavior for unsupported cities, or pagination – meaningful gaps with zero 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the geographic/data-source constraint, supported values, and return shape. Zero filler; every sentence contributes useful scoping information.

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 4-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential context: what data, which cities, which categories, geographic restriction, data source, and what comes back. Parameter defaults are covered by the schema. Nothing an agent critically needs is absent.

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 four parameters including defaults (limit=50, daysBack=30). The description adds only the category values ('crime, 311') and city list, which are largely redundant with the schema's enum and description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('publicly available data for a US city by category'), and names the data source (Socrata). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like query_national_crime, query_311_trends, or query_demographics – an agent might reasonably ask why it would use this general query when specialized tools exist.

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 usage context by listing supported cities and categories ('crime, 311'), giving an agent some idea of when this tool applies. But it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of overlapping sibling tools (e.g., query_national_crime vs. the 'crime' category here), and no exclusions beyond 'US only'.

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