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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the tool returns a single tool recommendation and pre-filled args, and that state derivation is from the authenticated principal (also noted in the schema). It does not go deeper into edge cases or limitations, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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, starting with a guiding question, then quickly laying out state-based logic and the core output (next tool + pre-filled args). Every sentence contributes meaning, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation details.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only recommender with an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: state-based decision-making, return of the next tool with pre-filled arguments, and derivation from the authenticated principal. No critical information an agent would need to invoke or interpret this tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema already documents that no arguments are needed and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With no params to explain, the baseline of 4 applies; the description reinforces the no-input requirement without adding unnecessary detail.

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: it recommends the single next action based on the user's current state, with explicit state-to-action mappings (unregistered → register, unverified → start admission, verified → accept paid work or explore board). It also distinguishes itself as a meta-tool that returns the next tool + pre-filled args, setting it apart from all siblings.

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 clear when-to-use context by tying the recommendation to the user's current state and stating the tool obviates reasoning over the full catalog. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the state-based mappings effectively communicate the intended usage scenarios.

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