track_accessibility

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses a side effect: 'Stores audit results for historical comparison', indicating a write/persistence behavior. However, it does not clarify whether the tool triggers new audits or only reads existing data, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or data retention. This is partial disclosure but leaves key behavioral questions unanswered.

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 concise sentences that front-load the primary action ('Track accessibility metrics over time') and add value with supporting details ('trend analysis, predictions, recommendations; stores audit results'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the core purpose and mentions outputs like 'trend analysis, predictions, and recommendations', but it does not describe the return format, how trends are presented, or what 'recommendations' entail. This leaves some gaps for an agent that needs to invoke the tool and interpret results, but it is adequate for understanding the basic operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific context beyond what the schema already provides; it does not mention url, metric, or timeframe. Thus it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding of parameter semantics.

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's function: 'Track accessibility metrics over time' with trend analysis, predictions, and recommendations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_accessibility_score (single snapshot) and audit_url (one-time audit), establishing a unique value proposition.

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 for tracking metrics over time ('Track accessibility metrics over time') but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention exclusions. While the phrase 'with trend analysis, predictions, and recommendations' suggests a historical/comparative use case, it lacks direct guidance on when not to use it compared to siblings like compare_accessibility or generate_summary_report.

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