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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: output is a single next tool with pre-filled args, and the recommendation derives from the agent's current state. This goes beyond the annotation hints 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; the first hooks with the user need, and the second delivers the core promise plus concrete state mappings. Every clause earns its place, and the parenthetical list is scannable without being verbose.

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?

The output schema covers return shape, and the description explicitly states the return type ('single next tool + pre-filled args'). The state mapping gives enough context to know when to call it. Minor ambiguity around 'explore the board' and whether the listed states are exhaustive, but the tool is self-contained for its purpose.

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 notes 'No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal.' The main description restates none of this and adds no parameter ambiguity. Baseline 4 for zero params.

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 with a specific verb ('Returns the single next tool + pre-filled args') and resource (recommendation from current state). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the meta-tool that selects among the catalog, and the state-to-action mapping clarifies scope.

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 opening question 'What should I do next on A2AWire?' establishes the decision point, and the state-based mapping (unregistered → register, unverified → start admission, verified → accept matching paid work or explore the board) tells the agent exactly when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like a2awire_guide, but the contrast with 'reason over the full catalog' implies it replaces manual navigation. Clear context with no formal exclusions, hence 4.

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