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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value on the read side by disclosing the return shape ('violations by severity with node ids'), which matters given there is no output schema. It stops short of noting scope limits or runtime cost.

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 zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the return information follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the violation output and its ordering. Combined with a fully documented 4-parameter schema, an agent has what it needs, though prerequisites such as whether the page must be published are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, level (with default AA), pageId (default page_home), and templateSlug. The description's 'site or template page' phrasing merely echoes the schema's mutual-exclusion note and adds no format or semantic detail beyond it.

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 and resource ('WCAG audit of a site or template page') and enumerates the checks performed (contrast, alt text, headings, ARIA, interactive elements), which clearly separates it from the sibling audit_seo. An agent can identify and distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied: run this to check accessibility for either a site or a template page, and the schema's id/templateSlug notes encode the mutual exclusion. However, the description never states when to prefer this over audit_seo or any prerequisite (e.g. published vs draft page).

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