tool_card_well_known_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions computing a URL but lacks details on side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or error behavior. It is a simple compute function, so the transparency is adequate but not detailed.

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?

Single sentence, zero wasted words. Concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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 simple compute tool without output schema, the description hints at returning a URL. It could be slightly improved by specifying the return format (e.g., a string) but is mostly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that tool_name is used as the filename in the URL and mcp_server_origin is the base origin, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's empty descriptions.

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 computes the canonical MCP Tool Card well-known URL with the specific convention /.well-known/mcp-tools/<tool_name>.json. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_card_well_known_url or tutor_card_well_known_url by specifying the 'mcp-tools' path.

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 implies usage through the convention but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or mention any exclusions. No guidance on when not to use it.

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