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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it clarifies data comes from the 'last recorded scan,' results are 'worst impact first,' and findings are grouped by underlying pattern so one recurring root cause is presented as one problem. It also notes the ENTERPRISE plan restriction and read-only nature, all of which help an agent predict behavior.

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 well-structured, front-loading the primary use case and then explaining aggregation and ordering. It is slightly wordy with illustrative phrasing like 'one template fault across forty pages,' but every clause contributes to understanding the tool's scope and behavior.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the caller will receive: accessibility findings grouped by pattern, worst impact first. It covers data source, grouping, ordering, and enterprise restriction, leaving no critical gap 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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter, limit, including its default and cap, so the description doesn't need to add parameter-level detail. The description's mention of returning grouped patterns aligns with the parameter's purpose but adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: it finds cross-site accessibility patterns that can be fixed once across every website, grouped by shared theme, component, or colour token. It distinguishes itself from site-by-site remediation tools by emphasizing aggregated, pattern-level findings rather than individual findings per page.

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 states when to use it: to find a single high-leverage fix affecting multiple sites rather than remediating site-by-site. It doesn't name specific sibling tools as alternatives, but the 'rather than remediating site by site' contrast provides practical selection guidance.

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