dol_osha_accidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds return field details but does not disclose any non-obvious behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, default sorting, or response structure. Given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not extensive behavioral context.

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 with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by output details and a useful alternative. Every sentence earns its place, making it both concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, all optional, and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable amount of context by listing the key return fields and pointing to a sibling for further details. However, it does not mention pagination or default sorting, and there's no output schema to inform the agent of exact result structure. These gaps are minor given the schema descriptions. Overall, it is fairly complete for a search-type tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. It mentions industry codes, which loosely relates to sic_code, but does not clarify any parameter semantics. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is correct, and the description adds minimal additional value.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Search OSHA accident and fatality investigations.' It also lists the return fields (event descriptions, dates, locations, and industry codes), making the output concrete. Moreover, it differentiates from a sibling by pointing to dol_osha_accident_injuries for injury details, which helps the agent distinguish it from a closely related tool.

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 explicitly provides an alternative for a follow-up scenario: 'Use dol_osha_accident_injuries to get injury details for a specific accident.' This tells the agent when to use a different tool. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus other OSHA-related siblings like dol_osha_inspections or dol_osha_violations, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection among those.

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