employer_violations

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering behavior ('ordered by back wages, largest first'), return fields (location, findings dates, etc.), and matching behavior (trade name or legal name). No mention of rate limits or side effects, but for a read-only search this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. First sentence states the core function and inputs; second sentence adds ordering and output fields. Information is front-loaded and every word is necessary.

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 search tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers functionality, filtering, ordering, and return structure. It does not mention pagination but the limit parameter partially addresses that. No major gaps for the given complexity.

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. The description adds value by explaining that employer name matches trade name or legal name, that state is optional, and that results are ordered by back wages. This contextualizes the parameters beyond the schema 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Search WHD enforcement cases') with clear scoping (by employer name, optionally filtered by state). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'violations_by_state' (which filters only by state) and 'case_detail' (which gets a single case) by focusing on employer name search.

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 searching by employer name but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings like 'back_wages_summary' or 'violations_by_state'. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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