Get Accessibility Issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (score, failing checks grouped by impact level, affected elements, remediation guidance), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. However it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or which URL scopes are valid, and the read-only nature is only implied.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste; the purpose is front-loaded and the return-value detail follows immediately. Nothing needs trimming.

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 output schema, the description usefully summarizes the returned content (impact grouping, affected elements, remediation guidance), and the input schema fully covers both parameters. A mention of auth requirements or a usage precondition would be needed for a 5.

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% (both 'url' and 'strategy' are documented, with an enum for strategy), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('accessibility audit results for a URL'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_performance_metrics and get_network_analysis by domain. It does not explicitly name or contrast with a sibling, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 states what the tool does but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and does not reference any of the nine sibling analysis tools as alternatives. The agent must infer routing purely from the resource name.

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