인증 준비도 추정

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explicitly warns that automated inspection alone does not determine certification pass and that remaining manual/user review items are reported. This is valuable transparency for an estimation tool and aligns with the read-only annotation.

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 sentences, both information-dense and non-redundant. The core action is front-loaded, and the important caveat about automated-only assessment is placed second without bloating the description.

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 read-only annotation, fully described parameters, and clear input sources, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It also communicates what the output conveys: per-item compliance rates and remaining manual/user review. A fully explicit output schema would raise this further, but its absence is partly compensated by the description.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema, including the mutual exclusivity of reports/reportPaths and the default for pageCount. The tool description adds high-level context about aggregating Reports but does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 plus resource: it aggregates multiple inspection Reports into per-item compliance rates to estimate web accessibility certification readiness. It also clearly distinguishes itself from lower-level inspection tools like check_html or audit_url by operating on their outputs rather than performing inspections itself.

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 when to use the tool: after obtaining Reports from check_html or audit_url, and when estimating overall certification readiness across multiple pages. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the input dependency and estimation purpose provide clear contextual guidance.

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