arc_agent_card

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read-only fetch, shows the identity document nature, and even discloses that agentId is null until registered. It does not mention error behavior, authentication, or rate limits, but the core behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences, no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, the path format is given compactly, and the list of known names plus return fields are packed efficiently.

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 enum tool with no output schema, the description includes what to pass, the valid choices, and what the response contains. It does not describe error or not-found behavior, but the agent has enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 already documents the single name parameter with 100% coverage and an enum. The description adds the path pattern and the fact that these are BABA Capital agent-card names, but it does not add meaningful new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a BABA Capital ERC-8004 agent-card' and names the exact well-known path. It clearly states what the tool returns. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling arc_agent_get tool, so it is not a full 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus arc_agents_list, arc_agent_get, arc_agents_search, or other siblings. It lists valid names but provides no decision rules, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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