Share A Bot MCP A2A (agent2agent) Protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by declaring it's 'Read-only' (safety context) and detailing important behavioral traits in the 'LIMITATIONS' section about sampling methodology and accuracy caveats. It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs, but provides substantial operational context.

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 perfectly structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, limitations), each sentence earns its place by providing essential information, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what metrics are returned, when to use it, and important limitations. The only minor gap is not explicitly describing the return format/structure, but given the simplicity of the metrics listed, this is acceptable.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, focusing instead on what the tool returns and its limitations.

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 the specific action ('Return high-level directory metrics') and lists the exact metrics provided (total agents, total categories, verified count, free vs paid split). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'find_agent' or 'get_agent' by focusing on aggregate statistics rather than individual agent details.

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 explicitly includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section with concrete examples of user queries ('how big is Shareabot?', 'how many agents?', 'how many are verified?') and states it's 'useful for framing other search results.' This provides clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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