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

The description accurately reflects the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature of the tool by stating it merely returns a recommendation (the next tool and pre-filled args). It aligns with the annotations without contradiction. It adds behavioral insight into the recommendation logic (state-based transitions) beyond what the annotations provide, though it does not explicitly mention side effects (which are correctly absent).

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 exceptionally concise, using two sentences to convey the tool's purpose, state-based logic, and output. It avoids redundancy, each phrase adds value (e.g., the state examples clarify the logic, and 'so you do not have to reason over the full catalog' explains its value proposition). No filler or unnecessary detail.

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 description provides all necessary context for an agent to understand and use the tool: what it does, when to use it, what it returns (next tool + pre-filled args), and illustrative state transitions. It does not need to describe the output schema in detail because that is available separately. The description is self-contained and leaves no critical ambiguity.

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 no parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description does not add any parameter-related information because none exist. Given 100% schema coverage for parameters (none), the baseline score of 3 applies. The description's mention of 'your current state' is a conceptual input but does not require formal documentation.

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 purpose: to recommend the next action on A2AWire based on the user's current state. It provides concrete state-to-action mappings (unregistered → register; unverified → start admission; verified → accept matching paid work or explore the board), making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the broader catalog by positioning it as a single-call shortcut that bypasses manual reasoning over all tools.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool: whenever the user needs a next-step recommendation, especially when they don't want to reason over the full tool catalog. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like find_paid_work or discover_agents, but the phrase 'so you do not have to reason over the full catalog' provides clear usage context. The state-based examples further guide when the tool is appropriate.

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