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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool is the first question of a decision guide, without revealing whether calling it is read-only, whether it initiates a stateful flow, or what kind of output to expect. This is minimal behavioral context.

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 a single short sentence and is easy to scan. It repeats the phrase 'Which valuation approach fits?' from the title, but this redundancy is minor and the sentence still earns its place by specifying 'first question' and 'decision guide.'

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 simple zero-parameter starter tool, the description gives adequate positioning, but it leaves key context implicit: what the agent should expect upon invoking it, whether it displays a question, and how it relates to the other checker_* tools. Since there is no output schema or annotations, the description is the sole source of this information and could be more explicit.

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 covers this completely. The description is not expected to add parameter-level detail, and the baseline of 4 for zero parameters 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 states the tool is 'the first question' of the 'Which valuation approach fits?' decision guide, clearly identifying it as the entry point to a specific workflow. It is distinct enough from siblings like checker_answer and checker_tree because 'first question' signals its sequential role, though it lacks an explicit action verb.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: being 'the first question' suggests it should be invoked before the other checker tools, but no alternatives are named and no 'when not to use' guidance is given. An agent can infer the intended context but is not directed toward or away from any sibling.

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