track_accessibility

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

The description mentions storing audit results, implying persistence, but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., need for prior audits), rate limits, or authorization needs. Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure and falls short.

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 two-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, with no fluff. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity of 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, prerequisites, or how the tool relates to sibling tools like audit_url.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions and enums, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter context, so baseline 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 tool tracks accessibility metrics over time with trend analysis, predictions, and recommendations. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'over time' helps distinguish it from point-in-time tools like get_accessibility_score, but it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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. With over 20 sibling tools, the absence of usage context leaves the agent to infer intent.

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