Generate a validation report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by listing the exact validation categories and noting that the public-link check is 'bounded,' while also stating the report is Markdown and structured. It does not explain error behavior or the exact boundary of the link check, but the annotation coverage makes this sufficient.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose, enumerates the validation components in a compact list, and ends with the output format, making it easy to scan.

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 a full output schema and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description does not need to re-explain return values or parameter syntax. It covers the tool's scope and output format well. The main gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to choose this aggregator versus individual sibling tools, but the included components make that mostly inferable.

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 the schema already documents htmlFilePath, cssFilePath, and baseUrl. The description's mention of W3C HTML/CSS validation and public-link checks loosely maps to parameters, but it does not add explicit parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Combines') and clearly identifies the resource: a validation report covering W3C HTML/CSS, SEO/a11ility, JSON-LD, and public-link checks. It distinguishes itself from the single-purpose sibling tools by presenting this as the aggregate reporting tool, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 clearly implies this is the tool to use when a comprehensive validation report is needed, since it explicitly bundles multiple validation types into one output. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'for a single HTML check use html.local'.

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