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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns exactly one next tool with pre-filled arguments, derives the recommendation from the user's current state, and saves the agent from catalog-wide reasoning. This is valuable context not present in the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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: a direct question, a concise statement of behavior, and a helpful state-to-action mapping. Every sentence contributes; there is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 tool has no parameters, output schema is present, and safety annotations are already provided, the description supplies all necessary decision-making context: what it returns, how it derives the recommendation, and what the user's possible paths are. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool without additional information.

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 explains that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and this definition does not detract from that.

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 ('get') and resource ('recommended action') with a clear purpose: return the single next tool plus pre-filled args. It also differentiates from siblings by describing state-based routing (unregistered → register, unverified → start admission, verified → accept paid work), which makes it easy to distinguish from direct action tools like find_paid_work or onboard_start.

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?' and the phrase 'so you do not have to reason over the full catalog' clearly signal when to use this tool: when an agent needs a recommended next step rather than executing a specific action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the state-based mapping gives enough contextual guidance.

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