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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by revealing the internal state-machine logic and stating that the tool returns pre-filled arguments. This goes beyond simply repeating annotation metadata, though it does not delve into edge cases or variability of the 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The opening question immediately communicates the tool's purpose, and the state-based examples are packed into a parenthetical that is easy to scan. Every sentence 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 the zero-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how the recommendation is derived, and why it is useful. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 explicitly states that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail; the baseline for zero-parameter tools 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 a specific verb and resource: it returns a single recommended next tool with pre-filled arguments. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as a meta-level advisor that reasons over the user's current state rather than performing a domain action.

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 context for when to use the tool: whenever the user asks 'What should I do next?' and provides a state-based mapping (unregistered → register; unverified → start admission; verified → accept matching paid work or explore the board). It also explains the benefit over manually reasoning through the catalog, though it does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives.

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