analyze_accessibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only analysis and hints at shallowness via "basic", but says nothing about required permissions, fetch behavior, rate limits, or what is inspected.

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 short phrase with no padding, so nothing is wasted. The tradeoff is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps: what counts as an "accessibility issue", which rules or standard are applied, and what the result contains. A couple of sentences would close this.

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?

One parameter (url) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It never confirms the parameter is the target page URL or whether it must be absolute, though the uri format hints at that.

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 verb (analyze) and a resource (accessibility issues), which separates it from the many analyze_* siblings by topic. However, "basic" is undefined and no scope, standard, or depth is given, so the agent cannot tell how this differs from a deeper accessibility check.

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 when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from any of the ~27 sibling analyze_* tools. The agent must infer that this applies when the task is accessibility rather than title, meta, headings, etc.

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