get_accessibility_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read operation but fails to disclose that providing a URL triggers an audit (mentioned only in parameter schema). No mention of auth, rate limits, or side effects.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads the key information (score range, breakdowns) efficiently.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the output format (e.g., what breakdowns look like). It mentions 'detailed breakdowns' without specifics. Given tool complexity (dual input, optional weights), more detail would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'Supports custom weights' but this largely echoes the schema. The dual-input behavior of 'results' is described in the schema but not reinforced in the top-level description.

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 tool calculates an accessibility score (0-100) with detailed breakdowns by category and WCAG levels. It also mentions custom weights, making the purpose specific. However, it does not differentiate from similar tools like get_wcag_compliance.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., audit_url, get_wcag_compliance). It implies audit results are needed but does not instruct the agent to run an audit first or mention prerequisites.

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