Audit HTML for WCAG 2.2 defects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the number of checks, the finding shape (success criterion, offending markup, corrected example), and the analytical limits. It doesn't mention size limits or runtime cost, but nothing material is misleading.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the capability boundary. The long rule enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by defining coverage.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what comes back and in what form, which is the key missing piece. Only minor operational details (input size, latency) are absent.

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 both html and the severity_floor enum are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'snippet or full page' nuance and never mentions severity_floor, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (run 18 static WCAG 2.2 checks against HTML) and enumerates the covered rules, which makes it unmistakable against lookup_wcag_criterion or get_verified_fix_example. The scope ('snippet or full page') is explicit.

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 'Static analysis only' sentence defines clear exclusions (contrast, keyboard traps, focus visibility, reading order), which tells an agent when this tool will not answer the question. It stops short of naming siblings such as lookup_wcag_criterion as the alternative for explanatory lookups.

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