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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns a tool plus pre-filled args and derives the recommendation from current state, but does not disclose further behavioral detail. This is consistent with annotations and adds modest 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?

The description is two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose with a question, packs the state transitions into a compact parenthetical, and ends with an explicit output description and benefit.

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 zero parameters, an existing output schema, and annotations covering the operational safety profile, the description provides all essential information: what the tool returns, how it decides based on state, and why to use it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already states 'No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal.' With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4; the description appropriately adds no redundant parameter information.

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 opens with a direct question 'What should I do next?' and defines the tool as a 'One-call recommendation' that returns 'the single next tool + pre-filled args'. It maps specific user states (unregistered, unverified, verified) to distinct actions, clearly distinguishing it from sibling action tools by positioning it as the recommender, not the executor.

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 on when to use the tool: whenever you need to decide the next step, with explicit state-based branches (unregistered → register, unverified → start admission, verified → accept work or explore board). It does not explicitly state exclusions such as 'if you already know the tool, call it directly', but the usage context is otherwise unambiguous.

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