a11y_badge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the output format (accessible SVG), contents, color-coding behavior, and a deliberate semantic constraint ('does NOT say conformant', automated screening ≈ 1/3 of WCAG). It doesn't state permissions or side-effect behavior, but for a read-only badge generator this is solid 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and payload, and the remaining sentence adds a distinct behavioral caveat. Stylistic touches ('HONEST', the honest seal) cost a little density but don't obscure meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes the return value (SVG contents) and the scope caveat, which is what an agent needs to route and use it. The unmentioned 'lang' parameter and lack of precise formatting details keep it short of complete.

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 67%, and the description echoes some meaning ('color-coded by score', 'date ... scope') that overlaps the schema's own field descriptions. The 'lang' enum parameter is untouched in the description, and no extra format guidance (e.g. how scope is derived) is added, so it sits at the 3 baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns an ... accessibility badge as accessible SVG') plus the payload it carries (score, date, scope), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It never names a sibling, so a 5 for explicit sibling differentiation isn't earned.

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?

Gives an intended context ('Embed it in audited sites or statements') and implies an audit must precede it, which is useful. It offers no explicit when-not condition or comparison against alternatives like a11y_generate_declaration.

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