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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it is a single-call recommendation that returns pre-filled args, and that it derives the recommendation from the current state—useful behavioral context beyond 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?

Two sentences with a clear question, state diagram, and return contract. No filler or repetition; the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 no params, annotations covering safety, and an output schema, the description is complete: it states what it returns, why to use it, and how the recommendation is derived. Nothing essential 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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly omits parameter detail; baseline 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('recommend') and resource ('next tool on A2AWire'), and clarifies it returns a single tool with pre-filled args. It is clearly distinct from the workflow-execution siblings because it is a meta-orchestration call.

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?

It gives explicit state-based context (unregistered → register; unverified → admission; verified → paid work/board), signaling when an agent should call it. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives beyond the state mapping, so it stays one point below fully explicit.

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