legal_get_accessibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' correctly signals a read, and the enumerated settings reveal what the call surfaces, but there is no statement about permissions, whether missing settings are returned as defaults, or how the tool list relates to the settings payload.

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 tight sentences with the verb and resource front-loaded; the parenthetical field list earns its place by previewing the payload. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and states the plugin version prerequisite. Only return-value formatting is left unspecified, which is not required since no output schema exists.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Site id (see list_sites)'), so the schema already fully documents the input. The description adds nothing about the site parameter, which is acceptable at baseline 3 given the complete schema 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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('the self-hosted accessibility tool's settings') and even enumerates the returned fields (enabled, position, colour, tools, statement link) plus the tool list. It is unambiguous, though it never names its write sibling legal_put_accessibility or distinguishes itself from legal_get_accessibility_report.

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?

'Requires cvrt-legal 0.8.0+' is a genuine prerequisite an agent needs before calling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to the sibling legal_put_accessibility or legal_get_accessibility_report, so usage is only implied by the read-only verb.

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