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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the HTML is fetched or must be inline, what standards are checked (WCAG?), how issues are reported, or any side effects. The only behavioral clue is that it 'checks' a web page, implying analysis, but the input schema mentioning 'html' suggests raw HTML is expected, which is ambiguous with 'web page'.

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?

Two short sentences, no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded and easy to scan. The colon format is a bit odd but doesn't hurt.

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 2-param tool with no required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent should pass (HTML string vs URL), what 'Input' means, and what kind of report is returned. The vague 'Input to process' and lack of behavioral details leave an agent guessing.

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% with descriptions for both parameters ('Html to process', 'Input to process'), but they are minimal and somewhat confusing—'Input to process' is vague and could mean a URL or raw input. The description doesn't clarify the relationship between the two optional parameters or which is preferred.

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?

Description states a clear verb+resource: 'Check a web page for accessibility issues.' It distinguishes the tool's purpose from most siblings (though there are html-validate, contrast-ratio, page-audit siblings that overlap), so it's not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like html-validate, contrast-ratio, or page-audit. No mention of input format requirements (e.g., must pass HTML not URL) or edge cases.

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