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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: it returns the single next tool and pre-filled arguments, and it handles state transitions automatically. This is meaningful additional transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core question, followed by a concise state map and return-value summary. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler 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 zero parameters, a rich set of annotations, and an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the tool's current-state behavior, the categories of users it serves, and what it returns, leaving no important gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 fully documents this with the note that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The description correctly implies the tool operates on the current state without requiring explicit arguments, which aligns with the empty input schema.

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 states the tool's function: it recommends the single next action based on the user's current state. It explicitly differentiates itself from the broader catalog by saying the agent does not need to reason over all tools, and the state-based examples make the tool's role unmistakable.

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 this tool: whenever the user needs a next-step recommendation, with state-based guidance for unregistered, unverified, and verified users. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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