dol_osha_accident_injuries

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing the return fields and explaining the degree_of_inj mapping (1=Fatality, 2=Hospitalized, 3=Non-hospitalized). It also clarifies the relationship to accidents via summary_nr. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the additional context is helpful.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses four short sentences, each carrying useful information: purpose, return fields, degree mapping, and linkage. No wasted words, and it is easy to scan.

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?

Without an output schema, the description lists the returned fields and explains the degree codes. It mentions the key link via summary_nr. It does not discuss pagination or filtering details, but limit/offset are described in the schema. For a read-only data retrieval tool, the description covers the essential aspects an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description repeats the degree_of_inj mapping and mentions summary_nr linkage, but these are also present in the schema descriptions. It does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Get injury details from OSHA accident investigations') and lists the returned fields (demographics, nature of injury, body part, source, degree). It clearly indicates the scope is injuries tied to accidents, and mentions linking via summary_nr, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like dol_osha_accidents. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 by saying 'Link to accidents via summary_nr', suggesting one would first obtain a summary_nr from the accidents tool. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it is adequate but not strong.

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