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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the tool is a recommender, not an executor; it returns a single tool plus pre-filled arguments. It also explains that the recommendation is derived from the user's current state, which is meaningful behavioral context not in the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it immediately states the purpose, provides a concise state-to-action mapping, and explains the output value. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 parameters, an available output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: when to call, what the tool returns, and how recommendations are determined. Nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema already states that no arguments are needed because the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The description reinforces this by mentioning current state but does not need to add more; the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 identifies a specific function: returning a single next-step recommendation with pre-filled arguments on A2AWire. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a meta-tool that selects among the catalog rather than performing an underlying operation itself.

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 gives concrete state-dependent guidance: unregistered → register, unverified → start admission, verified → accept paid work or explore the board. It clearly implies when to call it, though it does not explicitly state exclusions such as 'do not use when you already know the next tool.'

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