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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral detail: it consumes the authenticated user's current state, returns a decision path, and provides pre-filled arguments, which goes beyond the schema and 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, opening with the exact user question it answers. Every sentence adds meaningful information: state-based examples, single-tool return, pre-filled args, and the benefit over reasoning through the full catalog.

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 zero parameters, rich safety annotations, and an output schema present, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the state transitions, the return shape, and why the tool exists, leaving no meaningful gap for an agent to call it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema already explains that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The description does not need parameter-level detail, and the 0-param baseline of 4 applies here.

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 identifies a specific verb (recommend) and resource (next action on A2AWire), and clarifies it returns the single next tool plus pre-filled args. It clearly distinguishes itself from a general catalog or guide by emphasizing one-call convenience and state-based routing.

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 implies when to use it: whenever the agent/user needs a next-step recommendation, with state-based examples. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to use instead, but the context is strong enough to guide selection without confusion.

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