dokimo_agent_card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by calling the card 'public' and specifying it is an A2A discovery document with particular contents, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element adds useful information: the action, the resource, the 'public' qualifier, and the card's contents.

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, zero-parameter read-only fetch, the description is complete. It explains what the returned artifact is and what information it contains, which compensates for the lack of an 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the fixed resource being fetched.

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 names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('Dokimo's public A2A agent card'), and explains what the card contains ('skills, endpoints, supported A2A versions'). This makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling tools, which clearly perform different operations like recomputing a merkle root or verifying an evidence package.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you want the discovery document that describes Dokimo's verification capabilities. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for a zero-parameter fetch operation.

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