Get A2A Agent Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the exact resource path (.well-known/agent-card.json) and the 'served agent' scope, but does not disclose response behavior, error handling, or the need for the agent to be published. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence. It opens with the verb ('Fetch'), names the resource, and clarifies via a parenthetical—no redundant wording. Every word contributes 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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description is adequate. It states the resource and the 'served agent' prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state that the return value is the raw JSON descriptor content, which is implied by 'Fetch ... descriptor.' No output schema exists, so a slightly more explicit return description could be added, but the current wording is sufficient for 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 100% with a single parameter `agent_id` described as 'The A2A agent id.' The tool description supplements this by stating 'for a served agent,' which adds a meaningful constraint that the ID must correspond to a served agent. This goes beyond the bare schema description and helps the agent select a valid ID.

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 action ('Fetch') and the specific resource ('A2A agent card' as the .well-known/agent-card.json descriptor). This precision distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_get_a2a_agent (which likely retrieves agent details) and lyzr_get_a2a_agent_card_convenience (a convenience wrapper), leaving no ambiguity about which tool to use for the raw descriptor.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lyzr_get_a2a_agent_card_convenience or lyzr_get_a2a_agent. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations. The only hint is 'for a served agent,' which serves as a prerequisite rather than usage direction.

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