Query Crime Statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: geographic granularity differs by country (US state-level, UK street-level, CA CMA-level) and UK data is reported by category. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, data freshness/lag, or the shape of the result, which leaves real gaps for a data-retrieval tool.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a tight, scannable per-country breakdown and a one-line note on country handling. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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 query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key context an agent needs: what each country returns and at what granularity. It is nearly complete, missing only return-format or data-freshness detail that an agent might benefit from.

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 both 'city' (with examples) and 'country' (enum plus auto-detect and ambiguous-city note). The description largely restates the auto-detection behavior, so 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 names a specific verb and resource ('query crime data') and scopes it to three countries, with per-country detail on the underlying sources (FBI UCR, data.police.uk, StatCan UCR). It clearly distinguishes the tool from non-crime siblings like query_public_health or query_demographics by domain, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 is implied by the domain (call it when you need crime statistics) and it usefully notes that country is auto-detected and required for ambiguous cities such as London or Birmingham. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance and names no competing sibling tool.

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