get_agent_card

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 explicitly lists the returned fields (name, description, skills, PeerID, DID), making behavior clear. However, it does not mention any authentication requirements, error conditions, or side effects, though for a read-only get operation this is acceptable.

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 concise (two short paragraphs) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, returned fields, parameter explanation. No wasted words.

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 simple getter tool with an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description adequately covers what the tool does and its parameter. It explains the return fields. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential errors (e.g., unknown peer) or constraints, but overall it is sufficient.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage; the parameter 'peer_id' has only type and default. The description adds crucial context: it explains that the parameter is the PeerID of the agent to query and that leaving empty or using 'self' returns the node's own card. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 it retrieves the capability card (A2A Agent Card) for a peer or the current node. It specifies the resource ('agent card'), the action ('get'), and the scope ('peer or this node'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'discover_agents' that list all agents.

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 explains when to use the tool (leave empty or 'self' for own card) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that 'discover_agents' is for discovering all peers. The usage context is implied but not fully specified.

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