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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by stating the recommendation is state-dependent and returns a single next tool with pre-filled arguments, which is genuinely informative.

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: two sentences that immediately answer 'what is this for' and provide actionable detail. The state-transition examples are high-value and the text avoids fluff or repetition.

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-argument read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains the core behavior, the state dependency, and what the caller receives, without needing to describe return values because the output schema already exists.

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 description explicitly states the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning.

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 purpose: return a single recommended next action on A2AWire based on the user's current state. It includes concrete state-to-action mappings and explains the output (next tool + pre-filled args), making it easy to distinguish from simply browsing the catalog.

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 context for when to use the tool by listing state-based transitions: unregistered, unverified, and verified users. It implies the tool is for deciding what to do next rather than executing an action, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which keeps it from a 5.

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