a11y-toolkit: Honest SVG badge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds important behavioral context: the badge is deliberately non-conformant, is based on automated screening covering roughly one-third of WCAG, and is color-coded by score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and kept short. The word 'honest' is repeated a few times and the scope note could be tightened, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return value's format, content, and purpose, while annotations cover side-effect safety. An agent can confidently call this tool for badge generation without missing critical information.

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 100%, so the schema already documents score, fecha, and lang with descriptions and an enum. The description only confirms that score and date appear in the badge, adding little beyond the schema.

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 defines the tool as returning an accessibility badge as accessible SVG with score, date, scope, and color-coding, and explicitly states that it does NOT claim WCAG conformance. It also distinguishes itself from a11y_evidence by scope, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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?

It gives explicit embed contexts ('audited sites or statements') and a scope note that directs machine-readable-bundle needs to a11y_evidence. This provides a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use distinction among siblings.

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