generate_a11y_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool creates a report, but does not mention any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or data handling. As a tool that fetches a URL and runs multiple checks, this is a significant gap.

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 is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes a bullet list of combined checks. However, the language mix (German with some English) might be slightly confusing, and the args/returns section is redundant with structured fields.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It mentions the report includes a total score and recommendations, adding some value. However, without annotations, more behavioral context (e.g., that it fetches a live URL, might be slow) would improve completeness.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for the 'url' parameter. The description adds a brief 'URL to be tested' in the args section, but does not provide format examples, constraints, or valid URL patterns. More detail is needed to compensate for the schema gap.

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 it creates a complete accessibility report for a URL, and explicitly mentions that it combines all checks (URL accessibility, images, forms, headings), distinguishing it from the sibling tools which focus on individual checks.

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 this tool is for comprehensive accessibility auditing, while sibling tools are for specific checks. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over others, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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