a2a_get_agent_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the return format: 'Returns a JSON-LD Agent Card following the A2A v0.3 specification.' It also explains the content of the card: 'declares supported capabilities, endpoints, and authentication requirements.' This gives a clear picture of what the tool does and what the agent will receive.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose. The second provides usage guidelines. The third details return format and exclusions. Information is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required string parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage alternatives, behavioral details, and return format. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'org_slug', so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic information beyond the schema's example ('clinica-dental-sur'), but this is acceptable as the schema already provides sufficient detail.

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 'Get the A2A Agent Card for an organization, enabling inter-agent discovery.' It specifies the verb (Get), the resource (Agent Card), and the context (inter-agent discovery). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like registry.get_organization and services.list, which are explicitly mentioned.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'when your agent needs to communicate with another agent managing this organization.' It also provides explicit alternatives: 'Do NOT use for human-facing discovery (use registry.get_organization) or service listing (use services.list).' This leaves no ambiguity about the appropriate context.

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