audit_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds meaningful details: default audit level (A+AA cumulative), output grouping by impact, and inclusion of WCAG criteria, CSS selectors, and help URLs. This goes beyond a generic statement but does not cover potential errors or access limitations.

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 tight sentences: the first states purpose, the second explains default behavior and return format. Zero filler, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core function.

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 no output schema, the description explains return composition (violations grouped by impact with WCAG criteria, CSS selectors, help URLs). It does not discuss error cases or relationship to sibling tools, but with 9 richly described parameters and a clear summary, it is reasonably complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it does mention the default level (aa), which aligns with the schema. No additional value beyond schema.

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 'Run an axe-core accessibility audit on a web page at a specified WCAG conformance level.' This specifies the verb (run), resource (web page), and distinguishes it from siblings like audit_html (which likely audits HTML input) and get_rules (lists rules).

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 implies usage for auditing web pages but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_html or get_rules. No exclusions or conditions are given, so the usage context is clear but not fully articulated.

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