a11y_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search', which implies a read operation, but does not specify return format, whether it requires an active connection, or any side effects. Lacking these details leaves significant ambiguity for a tool with no output schema.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 optional params, high schema coverage), the description adequately covers what the search criteria are. However, since there is no output schema or annotations, the absence of any mention of return values or behavioral nuances leaves the description only partially complete.

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 schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'and/or' semantics, indicating that name and role can be used together or individually, which is not explicitly stated in the schema. This is a meaningful addition.

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 a specific action ('Search') and a specific resource ('the accessibility tree'), with precise criteria ('by role and/or accessible name'). This differentiates it from siblings like a11y_tree (which likely returns the full tree) and a11y_audit (which likely audits), even without naming them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or the existence of more appropriate tools for full-tree retrieval or auditing. The agent must infer usage from context.

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