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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the tool returns the entire decision tree with no parameters or modification, implying a read-only retrieval. It does not disclose the output format, potential size, or whether the response is best consumed in parts, but the core behavior is reasonably clear.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the domain, the scope ('every question, option and verdict'), and the intended reasoning flow, earning its place entirely.

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 no-parameter static reference tool, this is nearly complete: it identifies what content is included and why an agent would use it. The only missing piece is a brief note on the response format or how it relates to checker_answer and checker_start, since there is no output schema or annotations to supply that context.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist.

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 that the tool provides every question, option, and verdict of the CASP authorisation checker guide, making its purpose as a complete decision-tree reference apparent. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieve', but the content and intended use ('for reasoning end to end') are specific enough to distinguish it from the step-by-step 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 phrase 'for reasoning end to end' implies when to use the tool: when the full decision tree is needed rather than a single answer or starting point. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly contrast it with checker_answer and checker_start.

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