scan_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the return structure (issues, incomplete, summary) and warns that incomplete results need human review. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state safety or lack of side effects. Still, it provides useful behavioral context.

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 tight three sentences: purpose, applicability, and output details. Front-loaded with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description explains the three-tier output shape and provides examples of what goes where. It covers the main parameter usage. Additional detail on summary structure would improve completeness, but it is adequate for agent use.

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 description does not need to add much. The description provides context on URL handling but adds no extra meaning to viewport or rootSelector beyond the schema. 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?

Description clearly states the tool scans web pages for WCAG accessibility issues. The verb 'scan' and resource 'WCAG accessibility issues' are specific. Among sibling tools, this is the general scanner, distinct from specific ones like check_aria or check_color_contrast.

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?

Description explicitly mentions it works on any URL including localhost and staging, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use this tool.

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