dol_osha_inspections

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

Given the readOnlyHint annotation already conveys safety, the description adds value by disclosing the return contents ('site details, inspection type/scope, open/close dates') and explaining inspection type codes. This goes beyond the annotation, though it does not discuss quotas, pagination behavior, or error cases.

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 concise and well-structured, with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by compact, useful filter and return information. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 9-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core concepts: what it searches, key filter dimensions, type codes, and return fields. It doesn't mention defaults for limit/sort, but those are documented in the schema, and the tool is not overly complex. The description is adequate for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates what the schema already contains (e.g., state, SIC/NAICS, inspection type codes) without adding new meaning or clarifying parameter relationships or syntax beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 'Search OSHA workplace inspections,' clearly identifying the action and resource. It then lists specific filter dimensions (state, establishment, industry, type) and inspection types, which differentiates it from sibling tools like dol_osha_violations and dol_osha_accidents.

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 clear context on what can be searched (state, establishment, SIC/NAICS, type) and enumerates inspection types with their meanings. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over sibling tools (e.g., dol_osha_violations), so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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