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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds valuable behavioral beyond annotations: it returns a single next tool plus pre-filled args, and derives the recommendation from the current user state in one call. No contradiction with the 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The headline question immediately signals the tool's use case, followed by a compact state-to-action mapping and a clear statement of the return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has no parameters, a rich set of annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It explains the state-based logic, the return shape (next tool + pre-filled args), and why the tool is useful, leaving no significant gaps.

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 input schema has zero parameters and its description already explains that no arguments are needed because the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the main description reinforces this by not requiring any user input for the recommendation.

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 clear purpose: recommend the single next tool and pre-filled arguments based on the user's current state. It names the specific states and corresponding actions, which clearly distinguishes this recommendation/orchestration tool from the action-focused siblings like register and verify_contract.

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 explicit state-based usage context: unregistered → register, unverified → start admission, verified → accept matching paid work or explore the board. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools directly, though the state mapping effectively implies them.

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