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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it is a one-call recommendation, returns a single next tool with pre-filled args, and follows a state progression (unregistered → register; unverified → start admission; verified → find paid work or explore). 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?

Two sentences with the user-facing question front-loaded and the key value proposition immediately after. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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?

With no input parameters and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call, what state it derives from, and what it returns. The included state mappings are especially useful given the many sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the description carries no parameter-documentation burden. It clarifies that the tool produces pre-filled args rather than consuming them, which adds semantic value.

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 clear verb and outcome: it recommends the single next action for A2AWire based on the user's current state. It also distinguishes itself from catalog-wide tools by promising a single next tool plus pre-filled args, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like a2awire_guide.

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 opening question 'What should I do next on A2AWire?' and the phrase 'from your current state' clearly frame when to invoke this tool. It positions itself as the entry point that avoids reasoning over the full catalog, though it does not explicitly name cases where a sibling should be used instead.

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