audit_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool loads the URL in headless Chromium, runs engines and GOV.UK-specific checks, and returns structured JSON, Markdown report, and compliance summary. It does not mention rate limits or auth needs but is sufficiently transparent for the intended use.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence followed by an Args section. It is slightly verbose but remains focused and informative. The inclusion of parameter details is appropriate.

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 (5 parameters, 1 required, with optional steps and engines) and the existence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the tool's functionality, inputs, outputs, and behavior, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description's Args section adds detailed meaning for each parameter, including defaults, allowable values (e.g., WCAG levels), and the structure for 'steps'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool audits a single live web page for WCAG 2.2 accessibility with GOV.UK standard, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like 'audit_site' (which likely audits multiple pages) and other specific audit tools.

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 explains the tool loads the URL, optionally performs interaction steps, runs chosen engines, and returns structured output. While it gives clear context, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for different scenarios.

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