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

Annotations indicate read-only behavior (readOnlyHint=true), which the description does not contradict. The description adds useful context: it returns JSON and a base64 PDF, covers all EN 301 549 clauses, and marks non-web clauses as Not Evaluated. It also notes the API key is never stored, adding trust transparency.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, outputs, and scope. Every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, inputs (scan results), outputs (JSON and PDF), and scope (all clauses). It could mention the prerequisite scan_accessibility but is otherwise complete for a report generation tool with no output schema. Adequate for agent decision-making.

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%, so the description need not restate parameter details. It does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 states the tool generates a complete VPAT 2.5 EN 301 549 accessibility report from scan results, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_accessibility (scanning) and generate_fixes (fix generation). The verb 'generates' and resource 'complete VPAT...report' are specific and unambiguous.

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 use after scanning ('based on scan results') but does not explicitly state when to use or when to avoid, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites. The context from sibling tools is not directly referenced in the description.

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