generate_accessibility_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool checks but omits important details: it does not clarify that the page is not fetched (contradicting schema hint 'not fetched'), it does not state whether the tool requires network access, or mention any destructive or state-changing behavior. The word 'generate' implies creation but without side-effect clarity.

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 main purpose, and every word adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the report output looks like (format, sections), nor any behavioral details such as whether it fetches external resources or requires special permissions. The schema hint about page_identifier being 'not fetched' is not reinforced in the 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description (page_identifier noted as 'not fetched', wcag_level with enum and default). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool generates an accessibility audit report and lists specific checks (WCAG, keyboard navigation, etc.). It is a specific verb+resource combination, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'analyze_accessibility', which may overlap.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_accessibility'. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for optimal use.

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