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

The description discloses that the tool only recommends and returns a tool plus prefilled arguments, rather than executing the action. This is meaningful context on top of the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It also communicates that reasoning is delegated to the tool, which is a behavioral trait not captured by 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 two sentences, front-loads the core question, and packs the state mapping and return behavior into the first sentence. The second sentence adds distinct value by explaining why an agent should use this tool instead of reasoning over the catalog. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only recommendation tool with an output schema and safety-related annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how it decides, what it returns, and when to use it. The output schema covers the return structure, so additional detail about the returned tool shape is unnecessary.

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 already states 'No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal.' With no parameters, the description has little to add; the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 states a specific purpose: it is a one-call recommendation tool that returns the single next tool and pre-filled arguments based on the user's current A2AWire state. It also gives concrete state-to-action mappings (unregistered → register; unverified → start admission), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools. This is a specific verb+resource with enough detail for an agent to understand its role.

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 phrase 'so you do not have to reason over the full catalog' clearly implies when to use this tool: when the user asks what to do next and does not already have a specific tool in mind. It also gives conditional examples based on state. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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