audit_accessibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the tool runs an audit and returns issues, but does not disclose whether the tool is destructive, has rate limits, requires authentication, or handles invalid URLs. This lack of transparency could lead to misuse.

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 consists of two concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. No redundant information, front-loaded with key details.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context on behavior (e.g., idempotency), limits, and error handling, which would help the agent understand the tool's full impact.

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% for the single parameter 'url', which is already described as 'The URL to audit for accessibility'. The description adds no further semantic meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tool's purpose: running an accessibility audit targeting specific standards (WCAG 2.1 AA and EAA). It specifies the resource ('accessibility audit'), the verb ('run'), and the output (issues with references and fixes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_performance or audit_seo.

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 usage for accessibility auditing but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like quick_check or audit_site. No 'when not to use' or comparative context, leaving the agent to infer.

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