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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it states the decision logic based on user state and explicitly promises exactly one tool with pre-filled arguments, which is richer than merely 'returns a recommendation'.

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, zero filler. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core question and answer promise, and the second explains the state-based routing and return format. Every clause 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 zero parameters, rich safety annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: when to call it, what logic it applies, and what it returns. No critical gap remains.

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 already explains that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4; the description does not need to add parameter details.

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 specific verb ('recommend'), a clear resource (current state on A2AWire), and the concrete output (single next tool + pre-filled args). It also enumerates state-based mappings (unregistered → register, etc.), which differentiates it from the full sibling catalog.

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 clearly conveys when to use it: whenever an agent needs a one-call recommendation from the current state. It implies this removes the burden of reasoning over the full catalog, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state an exclusion condition.

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