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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool returns an AgentCard URL and a skill list, and clarifies the boundaries of related services (e.g., property sale is handled by a licensed real-estate agent). This exceeds the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 front-loaded with the key purpose but is written in both Japanese and English, duplicating the same content. This lengthens it unnecessarily, though the structure is clear and information is presented in a logical order.

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 provides enough context about what the tool returns and when to use it, and there is an output schema so return value details are not required. It could be slightly tighter, but it is complete for its narrow discovery purpose and includes additional useful context on related services.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema covers 100% of them (none). With no parameters to describe, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics.

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 returns the A2A Agent Card URL and the list of published skills, with a specific verb ('get'/'返す') and a distinct resource (the server's A2A agent card). It is distinct from sibling tools that audit estimates and check red flags, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 explicitly says to use the tool when an external A2A-capable agent wants to discover and connect to this server. It provides context for when it applies without giving formal 'when-not-to-use' exclusions, but that is sufficient given the tool's narrow, discovery-focused role.

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