dol_osha_violations

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by listing return fields (standard cited, initial/current penalties, abatement status) and the activity_nr linkage. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but those are partially in the schema. A minor concern: the description includes U and F violation types not present in the enum, which could mislead agents, though this is not an annotation contradiction.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, violation type legend, return fields, and linkage/pagination guidance. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or 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?

For a 7-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough return-shape hints (standard, penalties, abatement status) and linkage guidance to let an agent call it correctly. It could list all returned fields or explicitly mention that no filters return all violations, but it is adequately complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does add a legend for violation type codes and explains the activity_nr linkage, but it also references U and F codes that are not in the schema enum, creating potential confusion. Overall, the extra semantics are marginal and slightly inconsistent.

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'), names the resource ('OSHA violations'), and scopes it ('found during workplace inspections'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like dol_osha_inspections and dol_osha_accidents, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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 context is clear: this tool returns violation-level data (penalties, abatement status) and links to inspections via activity_nr, implying it is the right choice when violation details are needed rather than inspection or accident records. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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