check_wcag_criterion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool filters an audit, returns pass/fail per element, and is faster than a full audit. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or prerequisites, which are useful for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a valuable output hint ('Returns pass/fail per element'). Every phrase contributes without redundancy.

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 and no annotations, the description provides a basic return format and scope but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., invalid URLs, missing criteria, accessibility limitations). It is adequate for a simple check tool but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'criterion, level, and WCAG standard,' but 'WCAG standard' does not correspond to any schema property (only url, level, criterion). The description does not clearly map parameters to schema fields, leaving ambiguity for an agent.

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 action ('Check a single WCAG success criterion against a page') and differentiates from siblings by noting it 'filters audit to one criterion, level, and WCAG standard — faster than full audit.' This makes the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool — for targeted, faster checks — and contrasts it with a full audit. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state exclusions, but the context and wording ('faster than full audit') provide clear usage guidance.

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