validate_agent_card

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 states the tool validates against standards and returns a ValidationResult, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by additional details and parameter/return explanations. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections could be integrated more seamlessly. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 (validation against standards), no annotations, and an output schema (ValidationResult), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and basic parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and detailed parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but other gaps remain, making it adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics: it explains that 'agent_card' is 'The agent card JSON to validate' and mentions 'ctx: MCP context'. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, this provides some clarification beyond the bare schema, but doesn't detail JSON structure requirements, validation rules, or context usage. The baseline is 3 due to low parameter count, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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's purpose: 'Validate an Agent Card against A2A protocol standards' and 'Checks if the agent card follows the Darwin platform A2A standards and contains all required fields.' This specifies the verb (validate/check), resource (agent card), and standard (A2A protocol/Darwin platform). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate_mcp_tool_definition' or 'validate_azure_resource_name' beyond mentioning the specific resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'validate_mcp_tool_definition' or 'validate_azure_resource_name', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts for validation. The agent must infer usage based solely on the tool name and description without explicit direction.

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