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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it returns a recommendation only, not an executed action, and includes pre-filled arguments to save the agent effort. It also explains the state-based branching logic, which complements the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting 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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the user-facing question and immediately explaining the tool's value and output. Every sentence contributes essential selection and invocation information.

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 empty input schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to decide to call this tool and understand what it will get back. It covers the state-based behavior, the returned artifact, and why it is preferable to manual catalog reasoning.

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 itself explicitly states that no arguments are needed and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.

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: providing a one-call recommendation of the next action on A2AWire based on current state. It names the specific state transitions and output (single next tool + pre-filled args), which distinguishes it from the individual action/query tools in the sibling list.

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 the tool: when an agent needs a recommendation for 'what to do next' rather than reasoning over the full catalog. It also maps states to next steps, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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