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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description only needs to add context beyond safety. It adds that behavior is driven by the user's current state and that the tool returns pre-filled arguments for the recommended next tool, which helps the agent understand its non-trivial conditional 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core question and followed by a compact state mapping and output description. No filler or repetition of annotation data.

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-input, read-only recommendation tool with an output schema and safety annotations, this description is complete: it explains what it returns, the state logic, and why an agent would call it. The only minor gap, where the current state comes from, is already addressed by the input 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds contextual meaning by saying the recommendation is derived from the current state, complementing the schema note that the owner comes from the authenticated principal.

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 opens with a direct question, 'What should I do next on A2AWire?', and names the exact product: a one-call recommendation. It specifies the resource (the user's current state) and the output (single next tool + pre-filled args), which clearly separates it from the sibling action tools such as register or find_paid_work.

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 states when this tool is relevant: whenever the next step is unknown, because it gives a state-based recommendation and avoids reasoning over the catalog. It also enumerates the state-to-action mapping, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when another tool should be used instead, so it misses the exclusion part.

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