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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reasonably well by enumerating the payload (capabilities, skills, trust score, contact info), which implies a non-destructive read, but it says nothing about whether the agent must be registered, whether missing IDs error or return empty, or any rate/permission constraints.

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, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the return contents. No filler, and the parenthetical equivalence is genuinely clarifying rather than padding.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and why, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the absence of annotations plus no mention of error behavior for an unknown agentId.

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% and the single agentId parameter is documented as 'Agent/passport ID', so the schema carries the load. The description adds no further meaning about the ID's format or how it relates to passports versus addresses, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get an agent's A2A agent card') and anchors it to a well-known artifact (.well-known/agent.json), so an agent knows exactly what will be fetched. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like pabandi_discover_agents or pabandi_agent_registry, which keeps it from a 5.

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 says what it returns 'for agent-to-agent discovery' but never states when to call this instead of pabandi_discover_agents, pabandi_agent_registry, or pabandi_verify_passport. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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