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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the baseline safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: establishment-specific data is gated behind an OSHA sync, while industry composites are available without sync. This is beyond what annotations provide and helps set expectations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by availability and use case details. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining what data is returned. It covers the main content types (injury rates, top-quartile performance, EMR context) and the use cases. It does not mention return format, pagination, or data vintage, but for a benchmark lookup tool this is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'company, industry, NAICS code, and state,' which maps to the three parameters (company_or_industry, naics_code, state) and clarifies that 'company_or_industry' can represent either a company or an industry. It does not specify exact formats or constraints, but provides enough semantic meaning for a basic query.

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 states it provides OSHA injury and illness rate benchmarks, with a specific verb ('get') implied and a resource ('benchmarks') plus dimensions (company, industry, NAICS code, state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_osha_enforcement, which focuses on enforcement actions rather than benchmark rates.

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 gives practical usage context: industry composite benchmarks are immediately available, while establishment-specific data requires an OSHA sync. It also lists use cases (insurance, bonding, public contract prequalification). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use, but the guidance is clear enough for selection decisions.

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