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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it returns a single recommended tool, includes pre-filled args, and derives the recommendation from the current user state. This gives the agent a clear model of what the call will produce without contradicting 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core question and purpose. Its state-transition parenthetical packs significant value into a short space. Slightly dense, but every clause earns its place, making it efficient rather than bloated.

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 zero-parameter input, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns (single tool + pre-filled args). It doesn't explain edge cases like invalid user state, but for a simple recommendation router this is a minor gap.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage ('No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal'), there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description adds no param-level detail, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool 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?

The description starts with a direct question and answer: 'What should I do next on A2AWire?' It names a specific verb ('get recommendation'), a specific resource (next action), and states the output is a single tool plus pre-filled args. This clearly distinguishes it from the broader tool catalog, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit conditional routing ('unregistered → register; unverified → start admission; verified → accept matching paid work or explore the board'), which tells an agent precisely when to call it. It also frames it as a way to avoid reasoning over the full catalog. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives explicitly or saying when not to use it, so it loses one point.

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