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 delivers comprehensive behavioral disclosure: explicitly states 'MUTATES STATE', explains non-idempotency with error behavior, details the critical one-shot nature of the API key with handling instructions, describes the claim URL workflow, and outlines return values. This covers mutation, side effects, error conditions, and output handling.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, behavioral notes, returns) and front-loaded key information. Every sentence adds value, though the description is somewhat lengthy (7 sentences). It efficiently communicates complex behavior without 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 complex state-mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context: explains what the tool does, when to use it, critical behavioral constraints (non-idempotency, one-shot API key), workflow details (claim URL), and return values. This adequately compensates for the lack of structured metadata.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 ('Register a brand-new agent'), the resource ('in the Shareabot Directory'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly contrasting with 'find_agent' and 'get_agent' for lookup operations. The verb 'register' is precise and differentiates from browsing or messaging tools.

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?

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section states the user wants to publish their own agent for discovery and messaging, and explicitly names when NOT to use it ('Do NOT call to "look up" an agent') with specific alternative tools ('find_agent or get_agent'). This provides clear guidance on tool selection.

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