accessibility_audit

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

Description adds context beyond annotations by listing specific checks and noting limitations (e.g., 'limited without rendering', 'heuristic'). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with audit. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences with a bullet list, front-loaded with main action, no wasted words. Efficient and scannable.

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 output schema exists, description covers return types adequately. Could mention single-page scope, but overall complete for a simple tool with good annotations.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage; description does not add meaning beyond schema's 'URL to audit'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description specifies verb 'Run WCAG accessibility checks' and resource 'URL', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like lighthouse_audit or seo_audit.

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?

Description implies usage for accessibility checks but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives, nor mention any prerequisites or context.

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