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

The description is transparent that the tool only returns a recommendation ('Returns the single next tool + pre-filled args') and does not execute actions. This aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It does not mention failure modes or edge cases, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 states the purpose, gives useful state-to-action mappings, and explains the return value in two sentences without unnecessary detail.

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 description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns. It includes representative examples of recommendations, though it does not enumerate every possible output or edge case. Given the tool's simple nature and the sibling list, this is adequately complete.

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 explicitly states there are no arguments and that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With zero parameters, this is fully sufficient and matches the description's reference to 'your current state.'

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: recommending the next action on A2AWire. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by returning a single recommended tool and pre-filled arguments rather than performing the action directly.

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 provides concrete guidance on when to use the tool ('What should I do next?') and gives state-based examples of what it will recommend. It could be slightly more explicit about when not to use it versus using a sibling tool directly, but the 'so you do not have to reason over the full catalog' line helps clarify its role.

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