explain_finding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, making the tool's safety clear. The description adds value by detailing the specific data returned (HTML, screenshot, WCAG criteria, etc.) beyond what annotations convey.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and outputs. No redundant words, and the usage hint is concise. Every part earns its place.

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?

The description covers the tool's inputs, outputs, and usage context (after audit_url). An output schema exists, so detailed return format documentation is not needed. Given the tool's complexity, the description is fully adequate.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, meaning each parameter already has a thorough description (e.g., 'Finding ID from get_findings (format: rule:hash)'). The description adds minimal additional meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states the action ('deep-dive'), the resource ('a specific finding by ID'), and the output (element HTML, screenshot URL, WCAG criteria, etc.). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_findings by indicating this is a deeper dive on a specific finding.

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 explicitly advises 'Use after audit_url to expand on a finding from get_findings', providing clear context on when to use this tool. It could improve by mentioning when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.

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