Returns the structured offering for TESSA's WCAG 2.2 AA Accessibility Audit: scope, deliverables, timeline, pricing bands (hourly + engagement range), paired service-type slugs, and the URL of TESSA's profile in the TESSA Compliance Registry. Use this when a buyer agent needs TESSA's accessibility audit offering in structured form.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It sufficiently discloses the tool's read-only behavior by using 'Returns' and enumerates the contents of the returned structure. It does not cover edge cases like errors or null responses, but for a simple getter this is adequate.
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 two concise sentences, with the key information front-loaded. Every clause adds value, detailing the return payload and the intended use case without fluff.
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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fully self-contained. It explains exactly what the tool returns and when to use it, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds relevant context about what the returned data contains, which is more about outputs than parameters.
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 states the tool returns a structured offering for TESSA's WCAG 2.2 AA Accessibility Audit, listing specific elements (scope, deliverables, timeline, pricing bands, paired service-type slugs, and a profile URL). It uses a specific verb (Returns) and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that provide other services or profile information.
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 description explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when a buyer agent needs TESSA's accessibility audit offering in structured form.' This gives clear context, though it does not mention when not to use or point to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. The get_* tools retrieve different data types (services, firm profiles, case studies, audit offerings), the request_* tools target different actions (introduction, quote, strategy session), and assess_ai_readiness and claim_listing are unique. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Tool names are all snake_case and follow a verb_noun structure, but the verbs vary (assess, claim, find, get, request) rather than using a single consistent pattern. The get_ and request_ subgroups are internally consistent, so the naming is readable and predictable despite the variety.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped. Each tool serves a clear function in the marketing/directory domain: discovery (find, get), engagement (request, claim), and assessment (assess, get_wcag_audit). The count is neither sparse nor overwhelming.
The surface covers the core workflows: searching the directory, retrieving firm details and services, requesting intros/quotes/sessions, claiming listings, and checking AI readiness. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update a listing or access the compliance registry directly), but these are not likely to cause agent failures.
