violations_by_state

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or handling of empty results. The description only covers basic functionality.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Top WHD enforcement cases in a state') and adds the optional filter concisely.

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 listing tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and key filters. It lacks details about output format (fields returned) but provides sufficient context for selection.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds ordering context ('ordered by back wages owed') and reinforces the NAICS filter with an example, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 returns top WHD enforcement cases in a state with violations, ordered by back wages owed, and optionally filtered by NAICS code. It effectively communicates the specific resource and action.

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 retrieving violation cases ordered by back wages, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like employer_violations or case_detail. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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