Get Accessibility Score

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

The description only restates the purpose and adds no behavioral traits beyond the annotations. Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description does not disclose what an audit entails (e.g., live network request, duration, caching). Since annotations are present, the burden is lower, but the description adds no value.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no redundancy. The primary action and outcome are front-loaded. Perfectly concise.

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 is simple, has an output schema (though not shown), and full schema coverage. The description is adequate but omits context about how the audit is performed (live vs. cached) and what 'recommendations' entail. Given the complexity level, this is a minimum-viable description.

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% for all parameters, including device enum and includeDetails. The description does not elaborate on parameters, but the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and the resource 'accessibility score and recommendations for a website'. It distinguishes itself from performance, SEO, and security siblings by naming the accessibility domain, but does not explicitly reference alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer from the name that it is for accessibility audits only.

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