scan_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the use of an anti-detect browser for Cloudflare bypass and axe-core injection, but lacks details on failure handling or timeouts. Still, the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a paragraph detailing technology, and a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's complexity (Cloudflare bypass, axe-core), the description covers essential behaviors and return values. Minor gaps exist in failure scenarios, but overall it is complete enough.

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 Args section defines each parameter's meaning, defaults, and role (e.g., wcag_level default AA, wait_for_cloudflare default True). This compensates fully for the 0% schema description 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 tool navigates to a URL, bypasses Cloudflare, and runs an accessibility scan using axe-core. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like scan_element.

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 use for Cloudflare-protected pages and full accessibility audits, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like scan_element or configure_rules.

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