dol_osha_accident_injuries

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds useful context by listing return fields and explaining the degree-of-injury coding (1=Fatality, 2=Hospitalized, 3=Non-hospitalized). It also notes the linkage via summary_nr, going beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 four concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, return fields, degree value mapping, and linking mechanism. There is no redundant or fluff content.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with a fully covered schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to link to accidents. A small gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how summary_nr relates to the dol_osha_accidents tool, but the linking note suffices 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 description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters documented (limit, offset, summary_nr, degree_of_inj). The description's mention of 'Link to accidents via summary_nr' and the degree-of-injury mapping largely repeats the schema descriptions. Since the schema already provides full parameter semantics, no additional meaning is added.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Get injury details from OSHA accident investigations.' It specifies the returned fields (demographics, nature of injury, body part, source, degree of injury) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like dol_osha_inspections and dol_osha_violations by focusing on injury-level details.

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 a usage hint: 'Link to accidents via summary_nr,' implying it should be used with a known accident summary number. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like dol_osha_accidents, nor does it describe when not to use it. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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