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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description reinforces that it only returns a recommendation and pre-filled args, with no side effects. It adds no contradiction and minimally supplements the 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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant phrasing. The description is front-loaded with the core question, followed by the state-based logic and output details. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient context: the recommendation logic, the states considered, and the nature of the output. No additional information is needed for an agent to decide when and how to use this 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 schema description notes that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The tool description also mentions pre-filled args, clarifying that parameter values are generated by the tool itself. With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, parameter semantics are fully clear.

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?

Clearly states the tool's function: recommending the next action based on user state and returning the next tool plus pre-filled args. The conditional mapping (unregistered → register, unverified → start admission, verified → accept paid work or explore board) provides concrete examples of its purpose.

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?

Provides explicit conditional guidance on when to use based on registration and verification status, and implicitly distinguishes itself from reasoning over the full catalog with 'so you do not have to reason over the full catalog.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the conditions are clear enough.

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