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

The description states the tool returns a recommendation and pre-filled args, not an executed action, which is behaviorally transparent. The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive properties, and the description does not contradict them; it adds clarity about the output being 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, opening with the core question and then providing concise state examples. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 simple, zero-parameter nature and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and expected output. It does not discuss edge cases like no recommendation being available, but this is a minor gap for a recommender tool.

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 no parameters, and the input schema is empty, so there is little to document. The description notes the recommendation is based on 'current state,' which conveys that no explicit parameters are needed.

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 identifies the tool as a next-step recommender for A2AWire, with explicit state-to-action mappings (unregistered, unverified, verified). It distinguishes itself from the sibling action tools by stating it returns the next tool and pre-filled arguments instead of performing the 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 implies when to use it: when you need a one-call recommendation based on current state and want to avoid reasoning over the full catalog. It does not explicitly list alternative tools, but the examples and 'one-call recommendation' phrasing provide adequate guidance.

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