accessibility.audit

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds behavioral context: uses axe-core engine, checks contrast ratios, calculates accessibility score (0-100), and detects violations with severity classification. No contradictions. Adds value beyond annotations.

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?

Single paragraph, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No wasted words, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve scanability.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (violations, severity, score, contrast ratios). The 5 parameters are well-documented in the schema. Description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand usage and outcomes.

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 the baseline is 3. Description adds context about scoring and contrast ratio checking but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema's descriptions and constraints.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'WCAG 2.1 accessibility audit using axe-core' with contrast ratio checking. It enumerates specific outputs (violations, severity, score, contrast ratios) and distinguishes from siblings like 'audit.query' and 'quality.evaluate' by being highly specific.

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?

Description implies use for accessibility audit but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., audit.query or quality.evaluate). No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are given.

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