gov.msha-accidents

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context (source, dataset size, coverage since 2000) but omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, return format, or whether filters are required. It does not disclose potential side effects (likely none) or limitations.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with key info (source, size, coverage). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks details on return structure, default behavior when no filters are applied, and pagination. It covers the main use case but leaves gaps for complex queries.

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 description adds meaning for most filtering parameters (mineId, contractorId, state, subunit, date range, classification) beyond the schema, but fails to mention sort, limit, fields, and offset. Schema description coverage is low (9%), so the description partially compensates but is not exhaustive.

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 the tool retrieves MSHA mine safety accident records from the DOL Open Data Portal, covering all US mine accidents since 2000, and lists filter parameters. It distinguishes itself from similar tools (e.g., gov.osha-accidents) by explicitly specifying 'MSHA' and 'mine safety'.

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 lists specific filter criteria (mine id, contractor id, state, subunit, date range, classification), guiding when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for other accident types (e.g., OSHA).

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