check_accessibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It indicates a scan operation and returns results, implying read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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 three short sentences, efficiently front-loading the action. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema is indicated, the description additionally provides the return format. It covers the purpose and return value, though it could mention whether the tool modifies the document (it does not) or any required document state.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. The schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), and the description simply states the action without needing parameter details.

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 states it scans for accessibility issues, specifically checking images for missing alt text and tables for missing header rows. This clearly identifies the tool's verb (scan/check) and resource (accessibility issues) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_alt_text, set_alt_text, set_header_row, etc.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_alt_text or set_header_row. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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