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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral contract: it derives the recommendation from the caller's current state and returns exactly one tool with pre-filled arguments. It even exposes the state-transition logic (unregistered → register, etc.), which is genuinely useful context the annotations do not provide.

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 earning its place: the trigger question, the state-to-action mapping, and the output behavior with its benefit. The content is front-loaded and there is zero filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no-argument tool with an output schema present, the description provides everything an agent needs: what it returns, how it decides, and why to prefer it over manual catalog reasoning. The state mapping is explicit, and the authenticated-principal derivation is covered in the schema, leaving no critical gap.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents that no arguments are needed and the owner comes from the authenticated principal. The description adds no parameter detail because none is required; the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a specific purpose: recommending the single next tool on A2AWire based on the user's current state, with an explicit outcome (next tool + pre-filled args). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling action-tools by positioning itself as the meta-decision tool that selects among them, not an action performer.

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 frames the trigger ('What should I do next?') and maps each state to a recommended action, which tells an agent when to call it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as 'if you already know the next tool, call it directly,' so it stops one step short of full when/when-not guidance.

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