Get the complete WCAG requirement checklist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about the output (references, coverage types) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response size, pagination, or performance implications. Given the rich annotations, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences long, each adding value. The first sentence clearly defines what the tool returns, and the second sentence provides usage guidance. There is no wasted text, and no repetition of schema information. This is a model of conciseness.

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 the tool has three optional parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity (WCAG profiles with multiple dimensions), the description is too minimal. It does not mention that all parameters are optional, the default value for 'standard' (wcag22aa), or what the response structure looks like (e.g., list of criteria with metadata). For a checklist tool used for planning, users need more context about how the parameters affect the results.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameters (standard, principle, evaluation) have no descriptions in the schema. Although the parameter names and enum values are somewhat self-explanatory (e.g., 'standard' with values like 'wcag2aa'), the description does not explain how these parameters filter the checklist or fill the gap left by the schema. The description should at least describe the effect of providing these optional parameters.

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 explicitly states it returns 'every success criterion required by a WCAG 2.0, 2.1, or 2.2 A/AA/AAA profile, with W3C references, axe rule mappings, and explicit automated-partial versus manual coverage.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling audit tools (audit_url, audit_html, audit_file) which perform automated checking, and from issue-specific tools (check_contrast, etc.). The verb 'return' and resource 'checklist' are precise.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to plan the checks that a browser audit cannot complete,' giving a clear use case and implying differentiation from automated audit tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for other scenarios, which would earn a 5.

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