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.

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

Describes what the tool returns (instructions, config templates, links) and implies a read-only operation. Lacks mention of any authentication or access requirements, but given the nature of a quickstart guide, this is a minor gap.

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?

Three sentences, each with clear purpose: definition, usage guidance with exclusions, and output description. No wasted words, well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Fully covers the tool's purpose, when to use, what it returns, and exclusions. No missing information given the simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema).

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Description correctly states 'No parameters required' and does not need to add parameter meaning.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves the 5-step onboarding guide as structured JSON data. Distinguishes from siblings by explicitly excluding use for searching or availability checks.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (helping a new organization join) and when-not-to-use with alternative tool names (registry.search, scheduling.check_availability).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation by using 'Get' but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. It does list return contents, which provides some transparency.

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 waste. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third summarizes the return content. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 no output schema and only 2 simple parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (service catalog, provider list, booking policies). It also provides usage context. Slight improvement could be to mention that the response is a full profile object, but it is largely complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool gets the full public profile of a specific organization, listing contents (services, providers, booking configuration). It distinguishes from sibling registry.search by explicitly saying not to use it for searching.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('after registry.search when you have an org_slug and need detailed info before booking') and when not to use it ('Do NOT use for searching across organizations'), with a named alternative (registry.search).

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the tool returns static metadata about the server instance and not about organizations. It omits details like authentication or side effects, but for a read-only, parameterless tool, this is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences are efficient and front-loaded: purpose, usage guidance, and scope clarification. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fully complete. It clearly explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns.

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 no parameters and 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as it adds context beyond the empty schema.

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 tool retrieves the server manifest with specific fields (protocol version, server name, capabilities) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly stating what it does not do.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (verify server identity and protocol compatibility) and when not to use, providing alternative tools (registry.search, services.list) for other purposes.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that results are ranked and returns names, slugs, and service summaries, but does not explain ranking criteria, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination beyond the limit parameter. Adequate but not fully detailed.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage guidance, third describes output. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description partially compensates by mentioning return fields (names, slugs, service summaries). However, it lacks details on response structure (e.g., array format). Overall, sufficient for a search tool with optional parameters.

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 descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond summarizing the use case (e.g., 'by vertical, location, and country'). No new parameter details, so baseline 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 clearly states 'Search for Servicialo-compatible organizations by vertical, location, and country' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tool registry_get_organization by noting when not to use it.

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?

Explicitly says to use as primary discovery tool and provides an example ('find a physiotherapist in Santiago'). Also states not to use if org_slug is known, directing to registry_get_organization. No exclusions but clear context.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists returned fields (endpoint URLs, trust score, trust level, last heartbeat timestamp), adding behavioral context. Could explicitly state read-only nature, but implied.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, usage guideline, return values. No fluff, front-loaded, efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description details return structure. Purpose, parameters (via schema), usage, and returns are covered. Fully adequate for a simple lookup tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond schema; it implies country is for regional endpoint but doesn't elaborate. Adequate but not improved.

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?

Description clearly states the tool resolves an organization slug to endpoints and trust level, using a strong metaphor ('DNS of professional services'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like resolve_search and registry_search by specifying what it does vs. what it doesn't.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (when you know org_slug and need API endpoint before other tools) and when not to use (searching by vertical/location, directing to resolve.search or registry.search).

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'queries the DNS-level resolver and returns endpoint URLs + trust levels,' but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or error handling. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences, each with clear purpose: functional description, usage example, and differentiation. Efficient and well-organized.

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 search tool with 3 optional params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and basic behavior. Lacks details on response format beyond 'endpoint URLs + trust levels,' but overall complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond schema: it repeats default values and provides an example vertical list, but does not significantly enhance param meaning.

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 'Search the global Servicialo resolver for registered organizations by country and vertical.' It specifies the action, resource, and filtering dimensions, and distinguishes from siblings like resolve.lookup and registry.search.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use ('broad discovery', example given), when not to use (if you have org_slug, use resolve.lookup), and differentiates from registry.search by highlighting the DNS-level query and returned data.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses no authentication required, checks 3-way availability, and describes return format. Lacks details on error handling or empty results, but sufficient for a query tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value. No waste.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete: explains purpose, usage context, what it checks, and output format. Minor lack of error handling info, but overall comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%, but description adds extra context (e.g., 'No authentication required', 'resource_id: Only needed if the service requires a specific resource'). Adds meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Query' and resource 'available time slots for booking at an organization'. It distinguishes from siblings like registry.search and services.list by explicitly stating what not to use it for.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('after services.list when you know the org and need to find open slots before booking') and when not to use ('Do NOT use for searching organizations...'). Provides context of 3-way availability check.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral trait: 'Returns active, publicly bookable services only — internal or draft services are excluded.' No contradictions. Lacks mention of pagination or limits, but acceptable for simple list.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, usage context, and constraints. No 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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, description covers return content, constraints, and predecessor/successor tools completely.

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% (single param org_slug described in schema as 'Slug de la organización'). Description does not add new meaning beyond schema, but context of usage indirectly helps. Baseline 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 clearly states it lists public service catalog (names, prices, durations, modalities) and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with registry.search (organization discovery) and scheduling.check_availability (time slots).

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this after registry.search...' and lists two cases with alternatives: 'Do NOT use for organization discovery (use registry.search) or checking time slots (use scheduling.check_availability).'

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

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses return values (score range, trust levels, timestamp) and key behavioral trait: trust accumulates passively, cannot be purchased. Lacks details on error handling or permissions but covers core 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, no redundant words. Every sentence serves a purpose: action, usage guidance, and behavioral insight.

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 no annotations or output schema, description covers purpose, return values, usage boundaries, and key behavioral constraints. Sufficient for agent to correctly select and invoke.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond context already present in schema; baseline 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?

Clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'trust score', and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'resolve.search' by saying 'Do NOT use this to find organizations (use resolve.search)'.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to evaluate reliability before booking' and provides a clear negative use case 'Do NOT use this to find organizations' with alternative. Also explains passive accumulation, guiding appropriate use.

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