Run a single agent-readiness check

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses what the tool returns (status, evidence, fix recommendation) and a default behavior (omits raw remote artifacts). While it doesn't explicitly state non-destructive nature, it is implied by 'check' and the read-only context is reasonably conveyed.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with examples, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return structure (status, evidence, fix recommendation) and references sibling tools. It could elaborate on possible status values but is largely complete for a check tool.

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% and both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds example values for check_id but no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high 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 runs a specific agent-readiness check with examples (e.g., 'a2a-agent-card'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by contrasting use cases: targeted validation vs scan_site for complete score, get_fix_plan for roadmap, and list_checks for valid IDs.

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 explicit when-to-use (targeted validation after fix or debugging one signal) and when-not-to-use guidance, naming alternative tools (scan_site, get_fix_plan, list_checks) with their purposes.

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