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

The description discloses key non-obvious behaviors beyond the annotations: it downloads a remote URL, consumes free-tier quota, queues the check, and returns immediately with an id instead of a synchronous result. This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent set expectations and avoid misinterpreting the immediate return.

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 three sentences with zero filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by quota/cost notes and then the asynchronous behavior plus polling instruction. Every sentence contributes distinct value, and the structure matches the tool's actual workflow.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers all necessary operational context: URL type, PDF/UA-1 scope, caveat about WCAG, quota counting, async queue behavior, and the follow-up tool to poll. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the single parameter, url, with type, format, maxLength, and description. The description only adds 'Downloads a public PDF URL', which mostly repeats the schema's 'A public URL serving a PDF file.' No significant additional parameter meaning is provided, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Downloads a public PDF URL and runs a machine-verifiable veraPDF PDF/UA-1 check'. It also defines the exact scope ('document structure, tags, reading order') and explicitly differentiates from a full WCAG audit, making it easy to distinguish from sibling scanning tools.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool and what it is not for: 'not a full WCAG audit'. It also names the polling alternative, get_pdf_check, and instructs the agent to call it after queuing. This is explicit workflow routing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the differential output based on scan type and the fields included. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each adding essential information without redundancy. Front-loaded with key information about the resource and output.

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 one parameter, output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains both usage scenarios and directs to alternative tool for different inputs.

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?

The only parameter 'scanId' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description mentions 'The id returned by scan_url' which matches the schema description, so no additional value beyond schema.

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-resource (get findings) and specifies the outputs: rule id, severity, help URL, and element selector. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_run_findings' by noting the input type (scan_url vs scan_site).

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?

Explicitly indicates when to use (both kinds of scan_url scans) and when not to (for full-site runs, use get_run_findings instead). Also explains the difference in output size (top-5 sample vs full findings) based on scan type.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns 'status and the scope of any automated verification proof', which is output-oriented rather than behavioral. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, side effects) are disclosed beyond annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and includes output details. The second mentions the required feature gate. No extraneous information; front-loaded with the action verb.

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 the tool has a single parameter, no enums, and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the purpose and output content. It mentions the required Pro+ feature. It might miss details like pagination or ordering, but these are likely covered by the output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a list tool.

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?

The schema describes the single required parameter 'siteHost' as 'The registered site's normalized host'. The description adds value by specifying 'as list_sites reports it', which clarifies the expected format and ties it to another tool's output. This reduces ambiguity beyond the schema alone.

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 'Lists tracked remediation items for a registered site', specifying the verb (list), resource (remediation items), and scope (per site). It distinguishes itself from siblings like verify_fix by focusing on listing, not verification. The inclusion of output details (status, verification proof scope) adds clarity.

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 listing fixes but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over related siblings (e.g., get_fix_verification, verify_fix). The mention of 'Pro+ (REMEDIATION_TRACKING)' hints at subscription requirements but does not provide when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds polling behavior and scoped reporting ('only what was detected on selected pages'), which provides useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on return format or potential edge cases.

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 very short (two sentences), but the 'Pro+' fragment is incomplete and potentially confusing. It is efficient but lacks clarity in the second part.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, annotations, output schema exists), the description is adequate but not thorough. It conveys the core purpose but misses details like expected response or prerequisites (already partly in schema).

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% and the schema's description for fixVerificationId is already clear ('The id returned by verify_fix'). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so 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 indicates the tool polls a fix verification and reports detected issues. The verb 'polls' and resource 'fix verification' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_fix (which initiates verification) and get_fixes (which lists all fixes), though not explicitly.

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 after calling verify_fix (since it requires a fixVerificationId from that tool), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use, and no alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds that the tool polls, provides per-step checkpoints, and gives failure reason on terminal state. No contradictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with key information, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 full schema coverage and output schema implied, the description sufficiently covers polling behavior and terminal state. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or rate limits, but acceptable for a simple read-only tool.

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 the single parameter runId, described as 'The id returned by run_journey.' The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3.

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 polls a journey run started by run_journey, with per-step checkpoints and failure reason. It differentiates from siblings like get_run by specifying 'journey run' and referencing run_journey.

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 indicates usage after run_journey and mentions 'Pro+' tier. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling list provides context.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by explaining the polling behavior and the specific data returned (status, counts, failure reason), which are not captured in annotations.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return data. No unnecessary words 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 the existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description appropriately mentions key return fields without needing to detail the schema. The single parameter is clearly documented.

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% with a clear description for checkId. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 it polls a PDF check started by check_pdf and returns status, counts, and failure reason. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the polling nature and the type of data returned.

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 after check_pdf but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_scan or get_findings. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by mentioning deterministic behavior and the limitation regarding automated-test coverage and component boundaries. It also notes the Pro+ tier, which is not in annotations.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second adds a behavioral caveat, and the third notes the tier. Each sentence serves a clear function.

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 one required parameter, an output schema (not shown but present), and clear annotations. The description explains what is returned and gives a key limitation. For a simple read-only tool, this is nearly complete; a missing element would be describing the output structure, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 parameter 'runId' is already documented as 'The id returned by scan_site.' The description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline of 3.

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 returns 'deterministic repeated DOM patterns and factual blast-radius counts' for a 'full-site run', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_findings or get_run_findings. It also specifies the Pro+ tier, which sets context.

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 provides implicit guidance by noting the tool is for full-site runs and warns that grouping 'does not expand automated-test coverage and may not match the site's real component boundaries'. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a polling operation (implies repeated calls), provides progress, severity counts, and failure reason. The 'Pro+' hint about access control is additional.

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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence defines the tool's core function, second provides a clear alternative. Information is front-loaded.

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 description is complete for a simple read-only poll tool with one parameter and an output schema. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, prerequisites (run started by scan_site), and distinguishes from sibling. No gaps.

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 already states 'The id returned by scan_site.' The tool description reinforces this by mentioning the parameter in context ('Polls a full-site run started by scan_site — ...'). This adds value by linking the parameter to the tool's workflow.

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 'polls', the resource 'full-site run started by scan_site', and what it returns (page progress, severity counts, failure reason). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_scan' by specifying the scope (full-site vs single-page).

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 explicitly says when to use ('after scan_site') and provides an alternative ('For a single-page scan from scan_url, use get_scan instead'). Also mentions 'Pro+' which indicates access tier requirements.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, ensuring safe read behavior. Description adds that results are deduplicated per rule and include WCAG mappings, but doesn't contradict annotations.

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 sentences: first delivers core purpose and details, second provides alternative usage. No unnecessary words, well-structured.

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 the presence of an output schema, description need not detail return format. It specifies scope (full-site scan), deduplication, and WCAG mapping, which is sufficient for the tool's context.

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 the single parameter runId, with clear description in schema. Tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what schema provides.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves run-level, rule-deduplicated findings for a scan_site run, including WCAG success criteria mapping. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_findings' for single-page scans.

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?

Provides explicit alternative usage: 'For a single-page scan from scan_url, use get_findings instead.' Also notes 'Pro+' restriction, setting clear context.

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

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

Description adds beyond annotations by detailing return values (severity counts, finding sample, coverage disclaimer, failure reason) and clarifying it is a polling operation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Purpose and key details are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists, description sufficiently summarizes return values and covers both scan types. A bit more detail on polling behavior could be added, but it's adequate.

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?

The single parameter scanId is well-described in both schema and description; description adds context that it is the id from scan_url. Schema coverage is 100%, so minor extra value justifies above baseline.

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 polls a scan started by scan_url, works for registered or one-off scans, and distinguishes from sibling get_run for full-site runs.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (after scan_url) and when not (instead use get_run for full-site runs). Also mentions it works for either kind of scan.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: chronological ordering, per-run points, severity counts, marker conditions, and plan requirement. No contradictions with annotations.

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 efficient sentences, front-loading key information: chronological order, data points, constraints. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 the presence of an output schema and only two parameters, the description covers core aspects: data shape, ordering, feature marker, plan requirement. Missing details like limit default or pagination are minor omissions for a tool of this complexity.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 returns chronological per-run point history for a registered site's completed full-site runs, with counts by severity and optional added/resolved markers. It distinguishes from 'score' and mentions the Pro+ plan requirement, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 historical trend data and specifies constraints (registered site, completed full-site runs, no score). However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings like get_run or get_findings, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, read-only, idempotent nature. Description adds permission requirements (sites:read + API_ACCESS), which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded action. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with annotations and output schema, description covers permission needs and output purpose. Complete and self-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?

No parameters exist, so description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies as no parameter information is missing.

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?

Clearly states it lists registered sites and explains the significance of normalized hosts. Distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_url or get_scan which focus on scanning rather than listing.

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?

Implies usage to obtain site hosts for other Pro+ tools, but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or alternative options. Still clear enough given no competing list tools among siblings.

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

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces this by warning that saved steps can submit forms or trigger actions, and explains the async nature (queues and returns immediately). No contradictions with annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: purpose, licensing, risk warning, and async polling. No filler or redundancy.

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 description covers purpose, side effects, async behavior, and polling. With an output schema presumed to describe the return format, it adequately informs the agent. Lacks details on error scenarios but remains largely complete.

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% with clear descriptions of siteHost and journeyName. The description adds value by clarifying that steps and credentials come from saved config and are not accepted as parameters, enhancing understanding beyond schema.

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 replays a saved multi-step journey and checks accessibility at each step. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_url and get_journey_run by emphasizing saved journeys and polling mechanism.

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 provides clear context: it warns about destructive side effects from saved steps, mentions license requirements (Pro+), and directs to poll get_journey_run. It implicitly contrasts with scanning tools but does not explicitly list alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, is not idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that the tool 'queues the run and returns immediately with a runId,' implying asynchronous execution rather than synchronous completion. This goes beyond the annotations to explain what the agent should actually expect. It does not cover failure modes or then-разрешения, but the queuing behavior is the most important non-obvious trait.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core action is first, the asynchronous behavior and polling instruction follow, and the prerequisite condition is last. Every sentence carries functional information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations unnecessarily.

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 tool that starts an async job, the description covers the essential flow: initiate, obtain runId, poll with get_run, and precondition (list_sites). It also mentions the Pro+ (SCAN_FULL_SITE) requirement, providing permission context. It could be more complete by stating what happens if the siteHost is invalid or whether scans can be canceled, but those are secondary for a first invocation. Given the lack of an output schema, the runId and polling instructions sufficiently complete the mental model.

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?

The schema description for siteHost is already detailed: it specifies the normalized host, exactly as list_sites reports it, with no scheme or path. The tool description reinforces this by pointing to list_sites as the source for a correct value, which helps the agent avoid constructing the host incorrectly. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the explicit list_sites reference adds real guidance on how to obtain the parameter value, pushing it to 4.

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 states a specific verb ('crawls and scans') and a specific resource ('every reachable page of a registered site'). It immediately conveys the action and scope, and the mention of 'every reachable page' distinguishes it from any more targeted scan tool. Though no sibling tools are listed, the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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 provides explicit sequencing: 'Call list_sites first if you do not already know the exact registered host,' and 'call get_run to poll' after the run is queued. This tells the agent when to use this tool versus its companion tools and clarifies the expected workflow. No ambiguous or missing guidance exists for the primary use case.

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

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that scans are deterministic, may be recorded against a site depending on account registration and plan, return an id immediately, never return a compliance score, and include a coverageDisclaimer. These details meaningfully shape caller expectations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, followed by concise behavioral notes. Every sentence adds useful information without 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers key runtime behavior: asynchronous id-based polling, site association conditions, result caveats, and the coverage disclaimer. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret the immediate response.

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 url parameter is already documented as 'The http(s) URL to scan.' The description reinforces the http(s) constraint and that no other arguments should be passed, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Scans one http(s) URL for accessibility problems with axe-core.' It also differentiates from siblings by emphasizing a single URL and deterministic checks rather than a language model's opinion, making it easy to distinguish from scan_site and other tools.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Pass the URL and nothing else,' explains the registered-site versus one-off behavior, and directs the caller to poll with get_scan. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the single-URL framing strongly implies when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals the action is queued rather than synchronous, scopes the check to 'representative pages', and notes the 'Pro+' entitlement requirement. This is consistent with idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false; no contradiction exists.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the caveats are cleanly separated at the end.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it communicates async behavior, scope, limitations, and entitlement. The only notable gap is that it does not suggest using the sibling get_fix_verification to check the queued verification outcome, which would be helpful for a queued action.

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?

The input schema already covers the single parameter with 100% coverage, including the description 'A fix id returned by get_fixes.' The tool description's phrase 'one tracked fix' does not add materially new meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 uses a specific verb ('Queues'), a clear resource ('one tracked fix'), and a specific method ('targeted automated re-check of representative pages'). It also distinguishes itself from a full-site re-scan and from compliance guarantees, so an agent can tell it apart from broader scanning tools.

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?

It gives an explicit invocation context: use this when you want a targeted automated re-check for one tracked fix. It also provides clear negative boundaries ('not a full-site re-scan or a compliance guarantee'), though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_fix_verification for retrieving verification results.

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