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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool returns exactly one next tool plus pre-filled arguments, and that the recommendation depends on the user's current state. The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add this extra context, which it does well.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core question ('What should I do next?'), gives a compact state-to-action mapping, and states the return value. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool has zero parameters, non-destructive annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It explains the tool's purpose, output shape (single tool + prefilled args), and decision logic without omitting any critical information.

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 parameters and the schema description already explains that no arguments are needed and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With 100% schema coverage and zero parameters, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. The baseline of 4 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 uses a clear, specific verb ('recommend') and resource ('next action on A2AWire'), and differentiates the tool by stating it returns the single next tool with pre-filled arguments. It also maps user states to concrete next actions (unregistered → register; unverified → start admission; verified → accept paid work), making its purpose 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?

The description clearly indicates when to use the tool: when the agent needs to know 'what should I do next' without reasoning over the full catalog. It provides state-based conditions that drive the recommendation, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for agents that already know the intended action. This is a clear but not fully explicit usage guideline.

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