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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining that it returns a pre-filled invocation with arguments, sparing the agent from scanning the full catalog, and that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal.

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 carry the entire purpose: the first frames the question and the state-to-action mapping, the second states the return contract. No wasted words, and 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 zero parameters, an output schema that presumably documents the return shape, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly when to call this tool, what it returns, and how it derives context.

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 documents that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With 0 params, the baseline is 4; there is nothing meaningful left for the description to add.

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, specific purpose: return the single next tool plus pre-filled args based on the user's current state. It distinguishes itself from the sibling action tools (register, verify_contract, find_paid_work, etc.) by positioning itself as the meta-level recommender rather than one of the executable actions.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for all three states (unregistered, unverified, verified) and maps each to an appropriate action. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but because this is the sole routing tool among siblings, the guidance is sufficient.

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