dol_osha_violations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful behavioral detail by listing which fields are returned (standard cited, initial/current penalty, abatement status) and explaining that activity_nr links to inspections. It does not mention pagination, but that is handled in the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: scope, violation type codes, return fields, and linkage to inspections. 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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key return fields and the relationship to inspections. The schema handles pagination, sorting, and parameter formats. The only notable gap is the violation-type inconsistency, which prevents a perfect score.

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 baseline is 3, but the description introduces a mismatch: it lists U and F violation types that are not present in the viol_type enum (which only allows S, W, R, O). This can mislead an agent into sending invalid parameter values. It does add the useful clarification that activity_nr links to inspections, but the contradiction outweighs that benefit.

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 and resource: 'Search OSHA violations found during workplace inspections.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like dol_osha_inspections and dol_osha_accidents by focusing on violations and their attributes.

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 clearly establishes context: use this when you need OSHA violation records, including cited standards, penalties, and abatement status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling set makes the intended use obvious.

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