legal_get_accessibility_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: a per-page recording cap of once a day, a bounded window of the newest 100 pages, and a minimum plugin version. It still omits permissions/auth requirements and whether the read is non-mutating, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences with the resource and its payload front-loaded, followed by the retention window and version requirement. Nothing is redundant and every clause adds information an agent needs.

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 and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the report contains and its data window. It lacks permission/error context, but the return-value semantics — the main risk here — are well covered.

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% and the single 'site' parameter is already documented as 'Site id (see list_sites)' in the schema. The description adds no format, id-source, or constraint detail beyond that, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('the markup repair report') and then enumerates its contents (totals per rule, per-page fixed/open items). This is far more precise than a tautology, though it never names the adjacent siblings (legal_get_accessibility, legal_reset_accessibility_report) to draw an explicit boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied by the content description — an agent can infer this is the diagnostic report reader, but there is no when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to legal_get_accessibility for settings. The 'Requires cvrt-legal 0.9.0+' line is a useful prerequisite but is not usage guidance.

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