Explain an accessibility rule

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns 'remediation steps' and 'axe rule reference', which is useful but does not elaborate on any potential limits or side effects. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 one sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('return implementation-focused remediation steps') and adds the specific context about axe rule reference. No wasted words, but could be slightly more concise by removing 'the axe rule reference' redundancy.

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 that there is a single required parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns. It does not need to detail return structure since there's no output schema. The tool is straightforward and the description covers the key aspects.

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 input schema already provides a detailed description for the 'ruleId' parameter (axe rule ID pattern), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add new parameter information beyond what the schema states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 remediation steps and a reference for a given rule ID. It specifies the verb 'return' and the resource 'implementation-focused remediation steps and axe rule reference', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_contrast' which are more 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?

The description implies the tool should be used when a rule ID from an audit is known, but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that if you need to run a new audit you should use 'audit_url' instead.

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