a2a_validate

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

With no annotations, the description supplies key behavioral facts: it only fetches and inspects, never connects or sends, and does not echo the bearer token. This adequately conveys the safety profile.

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?

Three sentences pack purpose, parameter meanings, and behavioral guarantees without fluff. The structure is well organized and directly relevant.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, its inputs, and the nature of the output (valid?/checks/warnings). Given an output schema exists, additional return-value details are not necessary.

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 no descriptions, but the description explains agent_card_url as the full served URL and bearer as optional and needed only when auth is required. Both parameters are semantically covered.

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?

Clearly states it validates Agent Cards at any standard A2A endpoint and returns a readable report. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or send by focusing on validation/inspection.

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?

Implicitly tells when to use: whenever you need to validate an Agent Card, and explicitly notes it does not connect or send. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the read-only validation purpose is unambiguous.

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