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 meaningful behavioral context: it performs a state-based lookup and returns an invocation suggestion (tool + pre-filled args) rather than executing an action. It does not repeat annotation facts nor contradict them.

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 tight and front-loaded: an orienting question, a compact conditional map, and the return contract. The semicolon-separated state transitions efficiently convey conditional behavior without extra wording. Every segment earns its place, and no information is redundant.

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 no-input recommendation tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the basis (current state), the main transition paths, and the return shape. A minor gap is the lack of guidance for states outside the three listed, but the listed states cover the core onboarding flow and the annotations cover side-effect expectations.

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 the owner is derived from the authenticated principal (100% schema coverage). Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed; it clarifies that only implicit user state is consumed.

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 defines the tool as a one-call recommendation engine that returns the single next tool plus pre-filled args based on the user's current state. It distinguishes itself from the sibling action tools (register, onboard_start, find_paid_work) by framing itself as the meta-decision layer: 'so you do not have to reason over the full catalog.'

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 a clear when-to-use context: call when you need to know what to do next, with state-conditioned outcomes (unregistered→register, unverified→start admission, verified→find paid work). It implies the alternative is manually selecting from the catalog but does not explicitly name a fallback sibling or state when not to use this tool, falling just short of the strongest routing guidance.

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