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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the full scope of content—every question, option, and verdict—but it does not describe the output format, whether the tool is static/read-only, or how interactive guidance tools relate to it. This is acceptable for a content-reference tool but not fully transparent.

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, tightly worded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's scope and purpose. Every word earns its place, and the most important information—'whole decision tree'—is front-loaded.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool provides: the complete set of questions, options, and verdicts for end-to-end reasoning. It could additionally mention the response format or how it relates to the step-by-step checker siblings, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simple nature.

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 confirms this with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool 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 the tool as providing the complete decision tree for the 'Which valuation approach fits?' guide, including every question, option, and verdict. The phrase 'whole decision tree' differentiates it from step-by-step siblings like checker_start and checker_answer, though it lacks an explicit 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?

The description implies the tool is for reasoning through the entire guide end to end, which signals when it is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as checker_answer or checker_start, nor does it give exclusions or alternative conditions.

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