generate_accessibility_statement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool generates a statement using an existing audit or by performing a new audit. It lacks details on side effects or permissions, but the core behavior is well-covered.

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: a brief purpose statement, a usage hint, and a parameter list. It is concise but could be marginally tighter. The front-loaded purpose is effective.

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 the description's coverage of inputs and behavior, it is largely complete. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but these are acceptable gaps for a straightforward generation 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by listing all 7 parameters with clear, concise explanations in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the bare property names.

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 purpose: 'Draft a GOV.UK-format accessibility statement from an audit.' It specifies the action (draft), the resource (accessibility statement), and the format (GOV.UK-format), distinguishing it from audit-focused siblings.

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 guidance on usage: 'Provide either audit_id (from a previous audit tool call) or url (to audit now).' This explains the two modes of operation but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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