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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description confirms the tool returns informational offering details rather than performing anything, but adds no behavioral context beyond that.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the four content areas with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the member list is placed right after the resource.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description's content enumeration (scope, deliverables, timeline, price range) usefully substitutes for a return-value description. Complete for a simple read-only informational tool, with the only gap being sibling routing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to mis-specify; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed to retrieve the audit details.

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?

States a specific resource (TESSA's WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility audit) and enumerates what the details cover: scope, deliverables, timeline and price range. Clear verb+resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_services or get_pricing, which overlap on offering/price content.

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 enumerated content implies when the tool is relevant (an agent needing audit specifics), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to get_pricing or get_services for overlapping questions. Usage is left to inference.

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