get_agent_card

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

With no annotations, description identifies the operation as a read ('Retrieve'), which is transparent. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether 'agent_id' must match internal identifiers. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Single sentence that is both concise and informative. No wasted words; structure is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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?

Given one simple parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose well. It hints at output content (skills, pricing, modes, examples). Could mention return format explicitly, but current level 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter ('agent_id'), so the schema already explains the parameter. The description adds no further meaning beyond 'Retrieve full card', 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('full A2A agent card for one Echo Agent'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_available_agents' (lists all agents) and 'hire_echo_agent' (does hiring), by focusing on retrieving detailed card for a single agent.

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?

Description implies use when you need detailed card for a single agent, but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternatives like 'list_available_agents' for browsing agents. Usage context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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