Get OSHA Inspection Detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core lookup and optional join but does not clarify permissions, side effects, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The behavior is adequately implied but not explicitly detailed.

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, well-formed sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and concise.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the result contains. It only says 'Look up one OSHA inspection' but does not describe the return fields or structure. For a simple lookup, this is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. The description restates the optional join but does not introduce new semantic meaning for parameters. 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 specifies a clear action ('Look up'), a precise resource ('one OSHA inspection by activity number'), and an optional behavior ('join violation/citation records'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like osha_inspection_search and osha_fields.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., osha_inspection_search, osha_fields). It mentions the optional join but does not explain when to request violations or when not to join.

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