get_wcag_compliance

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

The description discloses that if a URL is provided, an audit is run first, and lists return values. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., the audit might be time-consuming) or whether the tool is read-only. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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 fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return values are summarized. Could be slightly more structured but efficient.

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 complexity (2 params, one with enum and oneOf) and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers input behavior (URL triggering an audit) and output components. Slightly lacking in output structure detail but adequate for an AI agent.

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 does not add significant insight beyond the schema; it summarizes the tool's function but doesn't elaborate on parameters' meanings or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Check WCAG compliance status with detailed per-criterion breakdown.' It lists specific outputs (compliance status, percentage, violations, missing requirements), making it distinct from sibling tools like audit_url or get_accessibility_score.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a prior audit is needed) or situations where other tools might be more appropriate.

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