Look Up OSHA Jurisdiction by State

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Static reference' implying read-only behavior and lists output fields including a caveat. Does not detail auth or rate limits, but as a lookup tool it is sufficiently transparent for an agent.

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?

Description is a single paragraph but packs essential information: purpose, output fields, and usage context. Could be broken into shorter sentences for easier parsing, but is not verbose and front-loads the key point.

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 exists, but description enumerates all return fields (jurisdiction tier, program name, etc.) and explains the use case. Lacks mention of error handling or validation of state codes, but for a simple lookup it is largely 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?

Only one parameter (stateCode) with 100% schema coverage. Schema already describes it as USPS two-letter code, case-insensitive. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, so baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the tool returns specific fields (jurisdiction tier, program name, etc.) and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like osha_inspection_search by noting it as a static reference for sparse data scenarios.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'when an agent's OSHA query in MI / MN / IA / IN / CA / WA returns sparse recent data' and explains how the lookup helps obtain fresher data. Differentiates from alternatives by being a static reference.

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