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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations and does not claim side effects. It does not add much behavioral context beyond the annotations, but no contradiction exists.

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, with a clear question, answer, and concise state-to-action mapping. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 is self-contained for the tool's simple purpose: it tells the agent what it will receive and why it is preferable to manual catalog reasoning. No output schema is provided, but the return shape is summarized sufficiently.

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 input parameters; the schema already states the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The description adds no parameter details, but with 0 parameters the baseline 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?

Clearly states it recommends the next A2AWire action and returns the specific next tool with pre-filled args. The state-based examples (unregistered -> register; unverified -> start admission; verified -> accept work or explore) make its function unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use it: when the agent needs a one-call recommendation based on current state, and says it avoids reasoning over the full catalog. The conditional examples serve as guidance against manually scanning sibling tools.

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