get_accessibility_score

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose that providing a URL triggers an audit first, which is a significant side effect. However, the schema covers this, and the 'get' prefix suggests read-only behavior, so the description is not misleading but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every clause adds useful information about breakdowns and weights.

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?

With only 2 parameters, a complete schema, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the score range and breakdown nature. It could mention the URL-triggered audit behavior and return format details, but the tool is simple enough that the description is mostly sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (results and weights), so the schema already provides clear semantics. The description adds only the mention of custom weights, which slightly reinforces but does not substantially extend the parameter meaning.

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 verb 'Calculate' and the resource 'accessibility score (0-100)', with specifics about breakdowns by category and WCAG compliance levels. It also mentions custom weights, distinguishing it from sibling tools like audit_url or prioritize_issues.

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 usage when you have audit results and want a score, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_wcag_compliance or audit_url. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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