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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the scan is 'en vivo' (implying a live network fetch with latency and external dependency) and that output includes verifiable violations plus remediation links, but says nothing about scan depth limits, timeouts, rate limiting, or whether the call is purely read-only.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and the standards covered, with zero filler. It loses a point only because so much is packed in that nothing addresses scope or limits.

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 2-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, naming the return payload is helpful, but the definition leaves gaps an agent would care about: how deep a 'quick' scan goes, whether the domain must be publicly reachable, and what the locale parameter changes.

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 only 50%: `domain` is documented in-schema but `locale` (enum en-US/es-ES/it-IT, default es-ES) has no described effect. The description adds nothing about parameters — notably it doesn't say that language controls the language of returned violations, which would be the key semantic an agent needs.

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: a live WCAG 2.1 AA / ADA / EN 301 549 scan of a domain, plus what it returns (verifiable violations and remediation links). The accessibility- vs security-audit distinction from the only sibling (ast_security_and_secret_audit) is inferable but never stated explicitly, and the description is in Spanish while the tool name is English.

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?

No indication of when to pick this over the sibling security auditor, no prerequisites (public reachability, auth, rate limits), and no explanation of what 'quick' excludes versus a full audit. The agent must infer all usage boundaries.

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