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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that this is the first question; it does not say whether calling it presents a question, returns options, changes state, or expects any follow-up. This is thin operational detail for a tool with no annotation-backed safety or side-effect information.

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, focused sentence with no redundant wording. The key identifier 'first question' is front-loaded, and the sentence is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter entry-point tool.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the caller receives or what to do next, but it only says the tool is the first question. It does not describe the returned question format, available answers, or how the agent should proceed to checker_answer, leaving important context to inference.

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 input schema is empty with 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but none is required when the tool takes no parameters.

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 the first question in the CASP authorisation checker decision guide, which communicates its entry-point role and distinguishes it from siblings like checker_answer and checker_tree. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'starts' or 'returns', so it describes what the tool is more than what it does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like checker_answer, checker_tree, or the enquiry_* tools. The entry-point usage is only implied by the phrase 'first question', with no mention of prerequisites, next steps, or exclusions.

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