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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds value by disclosing that it returns a single recommended tool with pre-filled args and that the recommendation depends on the user's current state. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: the first anchors the use case, the second details the return value and value proposition. It avoids repeating schema or annotation content.

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?

Given the rich annotations, output schema, and sibling list, the description is complete. It maps states to recommended actions, explains the return shape (next tool + pre-filled args), and clearly justifies why an agent should use it instead of reasoning over the full catalog.

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, and the schema description provides full coverage (100%), so parameter semantics are already fully documented. The description mentions 'pre-filled args' in the return value, not input parameters, so no further input semantics are needed.

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 verb ('recommends', 'returns') and a clear resource ('single next tool + pre-filled args'), and explicitly frames it as a meta-oracle over the sibling catalog. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like register, verify, and find_work, which are the actual actions.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent needs to know the next action from the current state, with example state transitions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of fully explicit when-not guidance.

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