Create an accessibility report PDF

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

Annotations already declare the write/open-world/destructive profile, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: local installs only, capped at 500 findings, free/no account, saved next to the project, and the grouping/scoring behavior. It does not explain the destructiveHint (e.g. whether an existing PDF is overwritten) or what a successful return looks like, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then input requirements, behavior, usage condition, limit, and alternative in a logical order. It is dense but nearly every sentence earns its place; only slight trimming would improve it.

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 file-generating tool with no output schema, the description covers what is produced, where it is saved, and the 500-item cap, which is close to sufficient. It never explicitly states the return value (e.g. the saved file path), which is the one missing piece an agent would want.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine provenance: pass the issues[] array that a scan_page call returned, tying the parameter to a specific upstream tool. The 500-finding cap is also a relevant constraint on that parameter. widgetDetected is left to 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 (turn scan findings into) and resource (branded WebAbility accessibility-report PDF), plus the input it consumes and its output. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling start_audit, so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

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?

Names the when-to-use condition (user wants a deliverable to attach to an email, ticket, or compliance thread) and the when-not/alternative (for the full audit deliverable, use start_audit instead). This is explicit routing rather than implied usage.

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