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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that this is the first question, but does not say whether the tool returns a question, initializes a session, or simply provides static content. Important behavioral expectations such as statefulness or output format are not addressed.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 no-parameter starting tool, the description provides enough context to identify the checker domain and position in the flow. However, it does not describe what the agent should expect in return or how to proceed to the next step, and with no output schema this information is not otherwise available.

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 is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool, and no additional parameter-related information is necessary.

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 entry point to the Citizenship by descent checker by referring to 'the first question' of the decision guide. It is not a tautology, and it communicates the resource and stage, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'displays' and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools.

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: an agent can infer this tool should be used when beginning the citizenship-by-descent checker, since it presents the first question. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus checker_answer or checker_tree, and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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