Look up an ADA Title II website accessibility report

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns in detail and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'look up'. It doesn't mention error handling for domains not in the index, but this is minor for a lookup tool.

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 tightly written: it leads with the action, summarizes the return payload, gives example questions, and includes the protocol-stripping note. Every sentence earns its place without 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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds valuable behavior beyond the schema, noting that protocol and paths are stripped automatically, which helps the agent construct valid input.

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 the specific verb 'look up' and the resource 'CivicBinder Municipal Web Accessibility Index', and lists the specific return fields (grade, violation counts, failing rules, deadline, link). It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool lookup_nonprofit_status, which is about a different subject entirely.

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 with example questions ('is cityofx.gov ADA compliant') and explicit scope (.gov domains). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tool is obviously different in domain, so the guidance is adequate.

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