check_accessibility

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

The description indicates it scans (read-only) and returns issues, but without annotations, it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or other behavioral traits like performance or permissions.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, specific checks, return format. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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 no parameters and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the tool's function. It mentions specific checks (alt text, header rows) but could list additional accessibility criteria for 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?

No parameters in schema (baseline 4). The description adds value by specifying what is checked (images and tables), providing context beyond the empty schema.

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 scans the document for accessibility issues, specifically checking images for missing alt text and tables for missing header rows. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_document or get_statistics by focusing on accessibility.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audit_document or other scanning tools. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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