dol_osha_inspections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating what is returned ('site details, inspection type/scope, open/close dates') and clarifying the meaning of inspection type codes (e.g., L=Programmed high-hazard). This goes beyond simple read-only confirmation.

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 four concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by filter options, type codes, and return details. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 search tool with no output schema and nine optional parameters, the description covers the essential context: what it searches, the main filter dimensions, and what is returned. It does not mention sorting or pagination, but those are documented in the schema. It also does not explicitly note that all parameters are optional, but the schema already indicates no required parameters. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description repeats the filter categories (state, establishment name, industry, type) and provides a slightly more detailed meaning for insp_type 'L' (Programmed high-hazard) than the schema's 'High-hazard'. This adds marginal value but does not significantly compensate for what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'Search OSHA workplace inspections,' which states a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like dol_osha_violations and dol_osha_accidents by focusing on inspections and listing relevant filters. The inclusion of inspection type codes further clarifies the exact domain.

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 listing search criteria ('by state, establishment name, industry (SIC/NAICS), or type'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related OSHA tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear enough to infer, but no explicit guidance or alternatives are given.

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