dol_whd_enforcement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds useful context about the types of data returned (back wages, penalties, violation counts) and data availability since FY2005, but does not describe response format, pagination, or rate limits. This is a moderate addition beyond annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, key data fields, laws enforced, and data coverage. It is front-loaded with the main action and stays focused without redundant or vague filler.

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 search tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description provides a solid overview of the domain, laws, and data scope. It does not explicitly mention pagination or return fields, but the schema covers parameters and the description lists key data elements. This is reasonably complete, though it could mention limits or common use cases.

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%, so the description adds little beyond parameter syntax. It does provide domain context (e.g., 'back wages' helps interpret bw_atp_amt), but the schema already explains each parameter clearly. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 states the tool searches WHD enforcement cases, specifically covering wage theft investigations with back wages, penalties, and violation counts. It names distinct laws (FLSA, FMLA, Davis-Bacon, SCA), which distinguishes it from other DOL tools like dol_osha_inspections.

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 implies usage for WHD enforcement queries and lists covered topics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dol_osha_violations for OSHA). No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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