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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the result focuses on elements exhibiting a given issue, but it does not disclose anything beyond that, such as output shape or limitations.

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 a single concise sentence that states the core purpose without extraneous wording. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it repeats the annotation title verbatim rather than adding a differently structured summary.

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 lookup with three fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks any guidance about when to select this tool over the sibling tools, which is a noticeable completeness gap given the similar sibling names.

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 all three parameters are already documented with names and example values. The description adds only the high-level idea of 'one issue in one report' and does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already gives.

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 names a specific action ('provide details about one issue in one report') and resource scope ('elements of the tested page ... exhibiting the issue'), which distinguishes it from broader report- or issue-listing tools. However, the tool name 'listViolators' suggests a plural list, while the description frames it as details about one issue, so the connection between name and description is not completely explicit.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings such as listIssues, getReport, or listDiagnoses. The one-issue/one-report wording implicitly narrows the use case, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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