browser_get_accessibility_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions running axe-core and returning issues. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., a loaded page), side effects (e.g., executing scripts), or what 'actionable issues' includes.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and result. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description only vaguely says 'return actionable issues' without specifying the structure or form of the results. It also lacks context about when the check runs (e.g., current page vs. full site) and prerequisites, leaving the agent with limited guidance.

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% for the single optional sessionId parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 verb 'Run' with a specific resource: 'axe-core accessibility checks' and promises 'actionable issues' as output. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which mention 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?

The description implies the tool is for checking accessibility issues but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. Since no sibling covers accessibility, the use case is self-evident, but there are no exclusions or context beyond that.

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