dol_osha_inspections

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent. The description adds value by explaining inspection type codes and what information is returned, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting defaults, or result limits, which are important for a search tool.

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 extremely concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: statement of action, criteria, inspection types, and return contents. No redundancy.

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?

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the main search intent and return fields, but misses details like pagination, sorting, and the ability to combine filters. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining the inspection type code letters (A, B, C, H, L) and listing the main search criteria, which goes beyond the schema's enum definitions.

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 searches OSHA workplace inspections and lists searchable criteria (state, establishment name, industry, type) and what is returned (site details, inspection type/scope, dates). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like dol_osha_accidents or dol_osha_violations, but the term 'inspections' makes the distinction apparent.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or scenarios where sibling tools (e.g., dol_osha_violations) would be more appropriate.

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