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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the data provenance ('Live US Dept. of Labor data') and, importantly with no output schema present, details the returned content including both initial and current post-contest/settlement penalties and summed totals. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, keeping it at 4.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the enumeration of returned fields, while dense, is justified because no output schema exists to carry that load. The example call is useful. It is a single long sentence-heavy block with slight redundancy, so 4 rather than 5.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the identifier's origin, a concrete example, and a full accounting of the returned fields including the contest/settlement penalty nuance. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents activity_nr fully. The description repeats the origin of the value and mirrors the schema's example, adding little new meaning beyond the structured field. Baseline 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 states a precise verb+resource ('One OSHA inspection by its activity number') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming osha_inspections and osha_establishment_summary as the sources of the identifier. An agent can tell this single-inspection lookup apart from the listing tools without opening any schema.

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?

It clearly says where to obtain the required activity_nr and enumerates the exact questions it answers ('what violations came out of inspection X', 'what did OSHA fine them for this inspection'), which gives strong positive routing context. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named alternative for adjacent lookups (e.g., osha_standard), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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