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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not re-state safety. It adds useful context about the data source (DOL Enforcement Data), cryptographic attestation, verification URL, and cost per call. It does not disclose return format or potential response limitations, but the annotation coverage lowers the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the tool's core function, followed by source, use case, attestation, and pricing. The added commercial/verification details are relevant context and do not feel like padding.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned content, data source, intended use, verification mechanism, and cost. It lacks explicit response-format details, but an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the one parameter. It says 'for a named employer,' which clarifies that employer_name is the employer's name, but it adds no format, spelling, or legal-name guidance beyond what the parameter name already implies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves OSHA inspection and violation history for a named employer, listing specific outputs such as total inspections, violations, cumulative penalties, and violation type breakdown. It is specific about verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like get_dol_labor_violations.

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?

Provides clear use-context ('vendor diligence, M&A, or ESG risk'), which helps an agent know when to consider it. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so exclusionary guidance is missing.

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