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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it derives the recommendation from the caller's current state, returns the next tool plus pre-filled arguments, and avoids catalog-wide reasoning. No contradictions 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded as a user question, followed by a compact state-to-action mapping and a clear statement of the return value. Every sentence 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?

The tool is simple (0 params, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so return-value details are not required in the description. The description sufficiently covers purpose, usage context, behavioral expectations, and the nature of the output, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the empty input. The description adds value by explaining that no explicit arguments are needed because the owner is derived from the authenticated principal and the state is inferred, which is useful context beyond the schema stub.

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 verb and resource ('get recommended action') and explains exactly what it does: returns the single next tool with pre-filled args based on the user's current state. It also differentiates itself from siblings by framing itself as a catalog-level recommendation rather than one of the domain tools it may recommend.

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 tells the agent when to use it ('What should I do next on A2AWire?') and provides state-based decision examples (unregistered, unverified, verified). It implies this is the tool to consult instead of reasoning over the full catalog, but it does not explicitly state cases where another sibling should be preferred directly.

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