dol_osha_accidents

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description does not add any behavioral information beyond that (e.g., rate limits, authentication, or response format). It does not contradict annotations, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output summary. Every sentence provides value, and there is no unnecessary information.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output fields, and it references a related tool for deeper details. While it does not mention pagination or sorting (present in schema), the output description is sufficient given the complexity of 7 optional parameters and no output schema.

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 input schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level details; it only lists output fields. Baseline of 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource as 'OSHA accident and fatality investigations'. It lists return fields (event descriptions, dates, locations, industry codes) and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'dol_osha_accident_injuries' by directing to that tool for injury details.

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 provides a concrete alternative: 'Use dol_osha_accident_injuries to get injury details for a specific accident.' This helps the agent decide when to use a different tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other OSHA tools like inspections or violations, though the name is fairly self-explanatory.

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