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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds real operating context on top: crawl cap, same-origin restriction, static-HTML-only analysis (so JS-rendered issues will be missed), and a markdown return. The 'Pro.' marker is unexplained and the static-HTML limitation could be phrased more explicitly.

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?

Two compact sentences with the action, the cap, and the prioritization logic front-loaded, plus the output format at the end. The leading 'Pro.' fragment is the only wasted token.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, limits, analysis method, and return format well enough to call it correctly. Missing only an explicit statement of whether JS-heavy pages are fully covered and how the markdown report is structured.

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% with only two simple parameters, so the schema carries the load. The description reinforces the same-origin constraint on url and the hard upper bound of 15 pages, which aligns with the schema's '2 to 15' range but adds no new format or edge-case guidance.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — crawl up to 15 same-origin pages and audit each for WCAG 2.2 issues — which is concrete enough to act on. The site-wide scope implicitly separates it from the sibling audit_page_accessibility, though it never names that sibling outright.

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 'up to 15 same-origin pages' framing implies this is the site-level option rather than the single-page one, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. The 'Pro.' prefix hints at a tier gate without explaining what it means for the caller.

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