Get a browser-verified WCAG fix example

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: every pair was executed in headless Chromium against axe-core 4.14.0, and the detection method is reported so the agent knows whether automation or manual review catches the defect. What it omits is what happens on no match and whether the response is paginated or ranked.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then provenance/verification, then lookup modes. Each sentence carries distinct information an agent needs, and nothing is repeated.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the return payload (failing snippet, corrected version, AT impact, manual test step, detection method). It falls short only on the limit parameter and on match-failure behavior, which for a lookup tool is a minor gap.

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 67%. The description adds valuable format examples for sc_id (2.4.7) and pair id (wcag-1-4-3-01) and a keyword example (focus indicator), which go beyond the bare schema strings. However, it never mentions the limit parameter, never says whether query and sc_id can be combined or are mutually exclusive, and gives no default for the zero-required-parameter case.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: return a failing HTML snippet plus its corrected version for a WCAG 2.2 defect, along with an AT rationale and a manual test step. That is far more specific than the sibling tools, but it never names them, so an agent must infer on its own that lookup_wcag_criterion is for criterion text and this tool is for fix examples.

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?

It explains how to address a record (criterion number, pair id, or keyword) but never says when to reach for this tool instead of lookup_wcag_criterion or audit_html_snippet. The usage is implied by the content rather than stated as a routing rule, and no when-not guidance is given.

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