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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the operation is static, that no agent endpoint or skill is invoked, and that strict-current evidence and legacy interoperability are reported separately. This gives the agent a solid picture of side effects and result organization.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource; the second adds scoping and output behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter, stateless validation tool, the description covers what is validated, how validation behaves, and how results are organized. It stops short of describing the exact return format, but since no output schema is present and the tool is simple, this is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter, `card`, which is already described as an 'A2A Agent Card JSON object.' The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond that, but for a single fully documented parameter, no additional compensation is required.

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 identifies a specific action ('statically validate') and resource ('A2A Agent Card JSON object'), and adds clarifying scope by stating that no agent endpoint or skill is invoked. This distinguishes it from sibling tools and goes well beyond a tautological restatement of the title.

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 makes the intended context clear: static validation of an A2A Agent Card, not live endpoint/skill invocation. The explicit 'no agent endpoint or skill is invoked' clause provides a useful when-not signal. It does not name sibling alternatives or elaborate on when this tool should be preferred, so it stops short of full guidance.

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