get_agent_card

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful transparency by explaining that the card contains machine-readable compensation disclosure and a neutrality declaration.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single short sentence that names the resource and its key contents. Every phrase contributes meaning without redundancy.

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, parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool provides. It could mention the output format or more explicit use cases, but none are essential 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially complete and no parameter descriptions are needed. The baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, and the description adds no conflicting or missing parameter information.

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 identifies the resource as an 'A2A agent card' and states that it discloses compensation and declares neutrality, making the tool's purpose reasonably clear. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'fetches,' but the noun phrase is specific enough.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_registry_entry, verify_source, or check_source. The description does not include any conditional context or alternative selection criteria.

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