agora_a2a_registry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose result content ('with their card status') and that the relay is the data source, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or result size/pagination. Partial coverage justifies a middling score.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler and the core action front-loaded. Nothing to trim, though the parenthetical placement makes it slightly less scannable than a dedicated clause.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be spelled out, and the description does confirm it lists agents and status. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, it stops at minimum viability for a tool an agent must pick among many siblings.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter (space_id) is undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by explaining that the list can be 'scoped to one Space', which maps to that parameter, but adds no format or example detail.

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 (List) and resource (agents reachable over the A2A relay), plus what it returns (card status). It implicitly distinguishes itself from agora_a2a_card and agora_a2a_send_message, though it never names them.

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 parenthetical 'optionally scoped to one Space' hints at a filtering use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to, and no routing to the sibling A2A tools (agora_a2a_card, agora_a2a_send_message).

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