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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the search covers only concluded cases, is limited to since FY2005, can be filtered by employer/NAICS/state, and returns specific enforcement fields. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but the schema and annotations already fill the most important gaps.

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 dense but well organized: scope in the first clause, violation types and filters in the middle, return fields and an explicit use case at the end. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no marketing filler or repetition of the input schema.

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 search tool with zero required parameters, a 100%-covered input schema, and no output schema, the description is very complete. It tells the agent what data this tool searches, what filters are possible, what fields the results include, and which query pattern fits. Nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking 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 description coverage is 100%, so per the baseline the schema already accounts for all six parameters. The description reinforces that employer name, NAICS code, and state are key filters, but it does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, such as how limit, since, or _apiKey should be used. This is adequate but not enriching.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('concluded US Department of Labor Wage & Hour Division enforcement cases since FY2005'), and the concrete question it answers ('has <employer> been cited for wage violations'). It is more specific than a vague summary and provides enough detail to understand the tool's scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related whd_* siblings such as whd_employer or whd_top_backwages.

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 an explicit use case in the form of a direct question: 'Use for "has <employer> been cited for wage violations".' This makes when to use the tool clear. However, it does not mention when not to use it, nor does it point to alternative sibling tools for other WHD-related searches, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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