Query WHD Enforcement Records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals critical behavioral traits: that findings_end_date is the violation end date (not case conclusion), typical investigation lag (6-24 months), and that ld_dt is a load date. This goes beyond basic read-only hints and helps the agent avoid semantic errors, though it could mention pagination or default limits.

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-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then provides essential usage warnings. Every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise or broken into bullet points, but it remains efficient and clear.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description is fairly complete given the tool's complexity. It details crucial date semantics and suggests query strategies. It does not list all possible return fields, but a sibling tool (whd_enforcement_fields) likely covers that. The description adequately prepares the agent for correct invocation.

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% with all parameters having descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context about the data fields (findings_end_date, ld_dt) but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The warnings are complementary rather than parameter-specific.

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 uses a specific verb 'Query' and identifies the exact resource: 'concluded Wage and Hour Division compliance actions from the DOL WHD Enforcement (WHISARD) dataset.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like whd_enforcement_case (single case detail) and whd_enforcement_fields (metadata) by focusing on querying a dataset. The important date semantics add further clarification.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool correctly, especially regarding date filtering: it warns that findings_end_date is not the case conclusion date and advises using a wider window when filtering for recent cases. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to prevent common misuse.

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