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

The annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description confirms it returns a recommendation only. It does not explicitly state that no state changes occur, but the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint cover this adequately.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the guiding question, states the tool's purpose, gives concrete state-to-action mappings, and summarizes the output. No unnecessary information is included.

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 and the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: when to use the tool, what it returns, and how it relates to the overall workflow. The output schema is not shown, but the description sufficiently describes the output's purpose.

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 input schema already states 'No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal,' so there are no parameters to describe. The description adds no extra input-parameter detail, but this is not a significant gap given the zero-parameter schema.

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 and return a single next tool with pre-filled arguments. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on state-based recommendation rather than direct actions.

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 explicitly maps user states to appropriate next steps (unregistered → register, unverified → start admission, verified → accept matching paid work or explore the board). It also explains that the tool removes the need to reason over the full catalog, making its usage conditions clear.

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