Accessibility (a11y) Audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it uses axe-core, reports WCAG violations grouped by impact levels, and includes rule details and fix guides. It doesn't mention rate limits, auth needs, or performance aspects, but covers core functionality adequately.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by details on reporting and usage. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (auditing with axe-core), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what the tool does, how results are structured, and when to use it. It could mention output format or error handling, but covers essentials well for the context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'url' parameter fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the URL is audited for accessibility, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Run an axe-core accessibility audit') on a specific resource ('on a URL'), distinguishing it from siblings like analyze_seo or check_broken_links by focusing on WCAG compliance rather than SEO, link health, or other web analysis aspects.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool ('to check pages before launch or to monitor a11y regressions'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., not for SEO analysis). This gives practical guidance without exclusions.

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