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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It lists the data elements returned (scope, deliverables, timeline, pricing, etc.) but doesn't mention side effects, authentication requirements, or data freshness. For a simple read operation this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first lists the key output components; the second provides the usage context. Every word is purposeful with no redundant information.

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 enumerates the key fields returned (scope, deliverables, timeline, pricing bands, service-type slugs, profile URL) in the absence of an output schema. It is sufficiently complete for a tool that retrieves a known structured offering, though it could explicitly state the return format (e.g., JSON object).

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 tool has no parameters, so the input schema is empty with 100% schema description coverage. Per guidelines, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level information.

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 the tool as retrieving structured details about TESSA's WCAG 2.2 AA Accessibility Audit, including scope, deliverables, timeline, pricing, and associated slugs. It explicitly states the use case: when a buyer agent wants structured audit details. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_firm_profile which might provide general firm information.

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 a clear usage directive: 'Use when a buyer agent wants accessibility audit details in structured form.' It implies the appropriate context but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives like get_firm_profile or find_compliance_firm.

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