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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the important non-annotation context that this is a paid x402 call costing 0.01 USDC and requires an X-Bazaar-Key, which an agent must know before invocation.

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 a single efficient sentence with the payment prefix and validation target front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

The description covers the paid-call requirement and the validated artifact, which are key for invocation. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the linter returns (pass/fail, findings format, or error behavior), leaving a gap for an agent interpreting results.

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%, with agent_name fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description lists fields the validator checks (agent_name, https url, semver version, skills list), but it is unclear whether those are supplied as inputs or only inspected inside the target file.

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 names the exact artifact being validated ('A2A /.well-known/agent-card.json specification') and the operation ('Validate'), then enumerates the checked fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling linters such as mcp_manifest_lint and openapi_tool_lint.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for agent discovery' and the specific artifact name, but the description never states when to use this instead of other lint tools or what prerequisites apply. It provides context without explicit when/when-not guidance.

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