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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for the description is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the result depends on the user's current state and that the output is a tool plus pre-filled arguments. This matches the openWorldHint without contradicting any annotation.

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, leading with the guiding question 'What should I do next on A2AWire?' before explaining the return value. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only recommendation tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description fully covers behavior, return value, and state-dependent logic. It does not need to enumerate output fields because the output schema exists, and the input side is fully covered by the schema 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 description already fully explains that no arguments are needed and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With 100% schema coverage and no parameters, the description has no additional burden to carry here.

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: it returns the single next tool plus pre-filled arguments based on the caller's current A2AWire state. It gives a specific resource and outcome, and the state-based progression (unregistered → register, etc.) makes its purpose 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs to know what to do next and wants to avoid reasoning across the full catalog. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion cases, but the phrase 'so you do not have to reason over the full catalog' effectively positions it as the shortcut recommendation tool.

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