MCP-A2A-Gateway

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it fetches 'current state and any results', mentions the return structure (dictionary with status, result message, data), and specifies error behavior ('error if the task ID is not found'). It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs, but provides solid operational context.

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?

Perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement, usage context, parameter explanations, and return description in four concise paragraphs. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter read operation with no annotations or output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains purpose, usage, parameters, and return structure. The only minor gap is lack of format details for 'task_id' and explicit mention of whether this is idempotent or has side effects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining 'task_id' as 'The unique identifier of the task to retrieve' and linking it to 'send_message'. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints like UUID patterns.

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 specific action ('retrieves the result or status') and resource ('previously created task'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_task_list' (which lists tasks) and 'send_message' (which creates tasks). The mention of using 'task_id returned by send_message' further clarifies its relationship to other tools.

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 this tool ('Using the task_id returned by send_message') and provides a clear alternative scenario ('if the task ID is not found'). This gives the agent precise guidance on prerequisites and error conditions compared to other tools like 'list_agents' or 'register_agent'.

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