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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining that it returns a recommendation plus pre-filled args and does not itself execute anything. It also discloses state-dependent behavior. No contradiction with annotations; the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond what the annotations 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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The question-style opener, state mapping, and return-value description are all valuable and front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Complete for a zero-parameter recommendation tool. It explains the purpose, the state-based logic, and what it returns, while the annotations cover safety and idempotency. The output schema exists, so return-value details are available without needing to be repeated in the description.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema explicitly notes that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The description reinforces that no input is needed, so the baseline for zero-parameter tools 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 clearly identifies the tool as a recommendation engine that returns the single next tool with pre-filled args based on the user's current state. It distinguishes itself from sibling action tools by explicitly being an orchestrator/recommender rather than a concrete action like register or verify_contract.

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 states when to use it: when you need to know the next step, and even maps states to recommended actions (unregistered, unverified, verified). It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the state-based mapping and 'do not have to reason over the full catalog' make the intended context clear.

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