Get A2A Agent Card (Convenience)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context by indicating the request uses a convenience path rather than the standard .well-known URL, which helps the agent understand what is being done differently.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler or repetition. Every word 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 simple read tool with a single fully documented parameter and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly mention the sibling standard-path tool or describe the returned card's content, but the current information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 single parameter agent_id is fully described in the schema ('The A2A agent id'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('A2A agent card'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from the standard path variant by explicitly stating it uses the convenience path without .well-known/agent-card.json. This makes the tool's intent and differentiating scope obvious.

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 this is the convenience-path variant, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over lyzr_get_a2a_agent_card or any conditions/exclusions. Usage guidance is only implicit via the word 'convenience' and the path note, so it is adequate but not explicit.

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