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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently: it states 'Does NOT run the scan', explains why ('axe-core needs a real browser DOM'), and clarifies 'The score comes from your local run, not from this tool.' It also documents the PENDING_EXECUTION status, making the tool's non-executing behavior completely explicit.

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 long but information-dense; every sentence contributes either purpose, exclusion, execution caveat, return contract, or configuration guidance. The core caveat ('Does NOT run the scan') is front-loaded near the top, and the return shape is given precisely.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must and does specify the returned JSON shape, including the checks array, status values, playwright_script, install_command, and run_command. It also covers local execution dependencies and the config param, so an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal detail beyond the schema: it clarifies config is a JSON string for axe.configure() and that omitting it means standard WCAG 2.2 AA. URL and ruleset semantics are already fully covered by the schema, so the description adds little new parameter-level meaning.

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?

The description clearly identifies a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Designesy WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility verification framework'), enumerates the 11 checks, and notes the output is a Playwright + axe-core script template. It also names the sibling tool (designesy_score) for the alternative use case, so it is distinguished from siblings.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to audit a site for accessibility violations' and gives a concrete 'When NOT to use' case with an alternative tool. The local execution requirement is also stated, so an agent knows this tool only returns a script rather than performing the audit.

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