get_accessibility_audits

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'latest' but fails to disclose that the operation is read-only, any rate limits, data freshness, or response format. For a read-only tool, this is minimal.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly expanded without harming conciseness.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks usage context, behavioral details, and comparison to similar siblings. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, and the description adds no detail about the 'limit' parameter beyond its obvious meaning. The parameter's constraints (integer, 1-100, default 10) are self-evident from the schema, so the description does not add meaningful semantics.

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 'Get the latest public-sector digital accessibility audits' clearly states the specific verb ('get'), resource ('audits'), and domain ('public-sector digital accessibility'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_accessibility_figures' by specifying 'audits' vs 'figures'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_accessibility_figures' or 'search_statistics'), nor any conditions or pre-requisites. It lacks 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context.

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