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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's read-only and safe to call repeatedly, explains how the search works (matching against name, description, skills, tags with ANDed filters), and details the return format and empty result handling. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits or authentication needs, leaving minor gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (e.g., 'WHEN TO USE', 'HOW IT WORKS', 'RETURNS', 'TIPS'), making it easy to scan. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, such as explaining sibling tool relationships and search behavior, resulting in an efficient and front-loaded presentation.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return format. However, it lacks details on error handling or advanced search nuances, which could be beneficial for full contextual understanding, slightly reducing completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining that filters are ANDed with the query and providing tips like starting broad with the query only, but it doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 tool searches the Shareabot Agent Directory for AI agents by capability, using specific verbs like 'search' and 'matches'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning browse_categories for pure category browsing and get_agent/message_agent for subsequent actions, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 includes an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section that specifies scenarios like user requests for agents with specific capabilities or browsing, and advises calling this before message_agent when the handle is unknown. It also provides alternatives (e.g., use browse_categories for pure category browsing), offering clear guidance on when to use this tool versus others.

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