dol_osha_accidents

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true`, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns event descriptions, dates, locations, and industry codes, which is useful context, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or any other operational details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 three sentences long and every sentence earns its place: purpose, return fields, and a pointer to a sibling tool. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no redundant phrasing.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description does explain the return content (event descriptions, dates, locations, industry codes). It also points to a sibling for injury details. It does not explicitly distinguish from other OSHA tools like `dol_osha_inspections` or `dol_osha_violations`, but the tool names and other descriptions make those distinctions clear.

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% for all 7 parameters, so the schema fully documents each parameter's meaning and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, which is acceptable under the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search OSHA accident and fatality investigations.' It clearly states the tool's scope and explicitly names the sibling tool `dol_osha_accident_injuries` for injury details, distinguishing it from that alternative.

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 clear alternative: 'Use dol_osha_accident_injuries to get injury details for a specific accident.' This tells the agent when to choose a different tool, effectively providing when-to-use vs. alternative guidance.

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