dol_whd_enforcement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: temporal coverage ('Data available since FY2005') and the substance of the dataset (wage theft investigations, back wages, penalties, violation counts).

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 tight sentences with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information: what the tool searches, what the data covers, which laws are enforced, and data availability. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only search tool with all optional parameters documented, the description is largely complete. It conveys the output-relevant fields (back wages, penalties, violation counts), the laws, and temporal coverage. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by this description, though return structure is not detailed.

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 coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters already described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate: the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search WHD (Wage and Hour Division) enforcement cases.' It further clarifies what the cases contain (back wages, penalties, violation counts) and which laws are covered, making it easy to distinguish from sibling DOL tools like dol_osha_inspections or dol_ui_claims.

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 clear context for when this tool is relevant: labor-standard enforcement, wage theft, and specific laws like FLSA, FMLA, Davis-Bacon, and SCA. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the domain context is sufficient to route an agent to this tool rather than the OSHA or unemployment insurance siblings.

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