Get A2A Agent Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about fetching a 'published' card and its use for 'protocol-trust delegation,' which provides some behavioral context beyond the annotation but does not disclose potential failure modes or return behavior.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is adequate. It could be slightly more complete by hinting at the content of the card, but the output schema provides the structure. Overall well-suited to 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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The schema coverage is 100% trivially, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning. No improvement needed.

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 clearly identifies the resource 'Paybond A2A discovery card' with a purpose 'for protocol-trust delegation.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings like paybond_create_intent or paybond_authorize_agent_spend.

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 states what the tool does (fetch a discovery card) but does not explicitly tell when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. While sibling tool names imply different purposes, no direct guidance is provided.

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