Audit HTML for accessibility issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavior: it uses jsdom, lists detectable issue categories, and honestly notes unreliable rules. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. First sentence gives purpose, second adds important limitations. Well front-loaded.

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 the tool's complexity (a11y auditing), the description covers purpose, method, limitations, and parameter usage adequately. No output schema but return type is implied. Complete for practical use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'tags' parameter usage with examples like wcag2a. However, it doesn't specify that tags are optional or the default behavior if omitted.

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 it runs axe-core on an HTML string to find WCAG violations, and lists specific issues like missing alt text. This is a specific verb and resource, easily distinguishing from sibling tool audit_file which likely operates on files.

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 it catches structural/semantic issues but warns that layout-dependent rules like color-contrast are not reliable in jsdom. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool and its limitations.

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