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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about data availability (immediate vs. sync-dependent) and the pricing model ($0.02 USDC per call), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or what happens when no data is found.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core value proposition. It packs a lot of information into three sentences without redundancy. The pricing detail is arguably secondary but still relevant for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 benchmark tool with no output schema, the description covers the main use cases and data availability caveats. However, it leaves gaps: no explanation of the three parameters, no mention of what the response structure looks like, and no guidance on how to interpret the benchmark values. The sync-dependent behavior is disclosed, which is a plus.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. The description mentions 'company_or_industry' implicitly through 'establishment-specific data' and 'industry composite benchmarks', but it doesn't explain the 'state' or 'naics_code' parameters at all. With three parameters and zero schema coverage, the description should have mapped each parameter to its role.

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 resource (OSHA injury/illness benchmarks) and the specific verb ('get'), and it enumerates the key data points (injury rates, top-quartile performance, EMR context). It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_osha_enforcement by focusing on benchmarks rather than enforcement actions, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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 states when the tool is appropriate: for insurance, bonding, and public contract prequalification contexts. It also notes that establishment-specific data requires an OSHA sync connection, which is a clear prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_osha_enforcement or other benchmark tools.

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