A2A: Auth Status

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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing that the tool makes one HTTP call to the local daemon and returns setup steps as data. It also enumerates the specific status axes it reports, giving the agent a clear sense of what it will learn and how it behaves.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: the first front-loads the core purpose and reported outputs, the second provides the practical invocation trigger. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool, the description is complete: it explains what the tool checks, how it works, why it should be called, and what kind of result to expect. No output schema is needed given the straightforward, self-described output.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. It instead usefully explains what the tool returns, which is appropriate for a parameterless diagnostic.

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 states a specific diagnostic purpose: report whether the machine can participate in A2A by checking daemon reachability, card publication, token setup, peer configuration, and write status. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which focus on agents, tasks, and requests rather than overall auth readiness.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this FIRST whenever a tool is missing or a send fails.' This is clear context for when to use the tool, and it implies this is a triage step for other A2A tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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