a11y_generate_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the main behavior and a key feature (remediation guidance) and hints at a 'Pro' gate, but it does not disclose whether the HTML is sent to an external service, whether the api_key is mandatory, or what format the report takes. Some useful context is present, but important behavior remains implicit.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the primary action and key differentiators ('comprehensive', 'remediation guidance', 'Pro') efficiently, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Despite a clear core purpose, the definition is incomplete for a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It omits the relationship between this tool and a11y_scan_html, the role of scan_results, whether standard has a default, what the Pro/API-key requirements are, and what the report output looks like. An agent would need to make several assumptions before calling it confidently.

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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters (html, api_key, standard, scan_results). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but given the complete schema coverage, no compensation is needed; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and a concrete deliverable ('comprehensive accessibility audit report with remediation guidance'), making it clear what the tool produces. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like a11y_scan_html and a11y_add_aria by focusing on report generation rather than scanning or adding ARIA attributes.

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 alternatives. An agent must infer from the tool name and the sibling list that this is for report generation after an audit, and there is no mention that scan_results can be supplied from a prior scan or that a11y_scan_html should be used first.

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