get_wcag_compliance

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return values (pass/fail/partial, percentage, violations, missing requirements) but omits key behaviors like that a URL input triggers a fresh audit, or any side effects, permissions, or rate-limit concerns. For a read-only tool this is acceptable, but the missing audit-trigger behavior is a notable gap.

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, each earning its place: the first states the primary action, the second lists the returned information. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the return content in reasonable detail, which is important given no output schema. However, it does not mention that the tool can accept a URL to audit first, nor does it provide usage context relative to related tools. This leaves some gaps for a relatively simple tool.

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 has 100% coverage, including descriptions for both 'results' and 'level'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 verb 'Check' and resource 'WCAG compliance status', and specifies the detailed per-criterion breakdown, which differentiates it from the sibling get_accessibility_score. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other compliance-related tools like generate_compliance_report, so it stops short of a 5.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_accessibility_score or audit_url. The description only states what the tool does, without mentioning prerequisites, context, or exclusion conditions.

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