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 successfully declares 'Read-only, safe to call repeatedly' which covers the safety profile, and provides important error handling information ('Throws if the handle does not exist (API 404)'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential performance characteristics that might be relevant for an agent.

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, returns, errors) and every sentence earns its place. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by practical guidance, then detailed return information and error handling. 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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers the purpose, usage context, detailed return format (multi-line text with 12 specific data points), and error conditions. This gives the agent everything needed to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the handle parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema description. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Fetch the full profile') and resource ('for a single agent by handle'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_agent (for unknown handles) and browse_categories/directory_stats (for broader queries). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 two concrete scenarios (before messaging an unfamiliar agent, when user asks about @handle) and provides clear alternative guidance ('Prefer find_agent if the handle is unknown'). This gives the agent perfect context for when to select this tool versus alternatives.

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