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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the payment mechanism (USDC on Base, price per call), the HTTP 402 error when unpaid, the fact that after a valid X-PAYMENT the same URL returns JSON, and the pagination behavior (newest vs older chunks). It also notes that an empty new set returns 304 or recordCount 0. This covers the key behavioral aspects an agent needs to know, though it doesn't detail all error cases.

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 a single dense paragraph that mixes pricing, URL, payment, and usage instructions. It is informative but not well-structured; it could benefit from clearer separation of concepts. However, it is not overly long and contains all necessary information, so it's acceptable but not exemplary.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the URL, payment, response format (JSON after payment), pagination, and error handling (402). It also notes that it is not a new SKU, which clarifies its relationship to other tools. The only missing detail is the exact structure of the JSON response, but the description implies it returns the official text, which is sufficient.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter, including pricing, behavior (e.g., page ignored when since/before set), and the semantics of since as a watermark. The description adds a high-level overview of pricing and URL structure but does not add significant new meaning per parameter beyond the schema. Thus, the baseline of 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 explicitly states that this tool retrieves OSHRC ALJ Decision/Order and Commission Final Order text via a GET request. It names the specific agency (OSHRC) and resource type, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'aaib-reports' or 'ferc-orders'. The verb is implied as GET and the resource is specific, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage patterns: a plain GET returns the newest chunk, ?id fetches a specific official text, ?before fetches an older chunk, and ?since fetches texts newer than a watermark. It also explains the pricing and payment requirement (HTTP 402 if unpaid). However, it does not compare this tool to generic siblings like 'get-one' or 'get-page', nor does it state when not to use it, but the specific naming of OSHRC gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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