start_audit

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes that the tool runs server-side pipeline, returns immediately with an id, and requires polling. It also mentions the optional agent pass and its implications (slower, paid). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or that it requires certain permissions, but the context implies a read-like operation.

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 moderately long but well-structured: starts with purpose, then details, then usage guidance. It front-loads key information. A slight reduction in wording could improve conciseness, but overall it is not overly verbose.

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 that there is no output schema, the description covers return value (audit id), polling instructions, prerequisites (account and authentication), and output format. It also provides alternatives and explains when to use agentic audit. This is highly complete for a tool with two parameters and no output schema.

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 100% and descriptions are present. The description adds context beyond schema: url must be public/staging and not localhost; includeAgent defaults to false and is slower/paid. This is helpful beyond the schema definitions.

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 it kicks off a full accessibility audit deliverable, distinguishing it from inline scans. It specifies the server-side pipeline and outputs (downloadable report and Excel workbook). It also contrasts with sibling tools like scan_page and verify_fix.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('for evidence of testing effort for compliance officer or legal response') and when to use alternatives ('for iterating on code, use scan_page + verify_fix instead'). Also mentions required account and authentication.

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