gov.osha-violations

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Mentions data source and filtering but does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior (though offset/limit parameters exist), or read-only nature. Lacks details on what happens with large result sets.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every piece of information is relevant, no fluff.

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, 11 parameters including nested objects. Description covers main filtering capabilities but lacks details on return format, sorting, or how linking to inspections works. Adequate for a simple data query but could be more complete.

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 parameter descriptions are generic ('OSHA violations') with 0% coverage. Description adds meaning to some parameters (e.g., 'standard (29 CFR section)', 'initial-penalty min/max', 'emphasis program code') but does not explain others like sort, fields, citationId, activityNr.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves OSHA citation/violation records from a specific data portal, mentions data size (~13.2M citations), and lists filtering options. Distinguishes from sibling tools like gov.osha-accidents and gov.osha-inspections by specifying the record type.

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?

Implies use for filtering and linking to inspections, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., gov.osha-accidents, gov.osha-inspections). No guidance on prerequisites or when to avoid.

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