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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining behavior. It states what the tree contains but does not explicitly say that calling the tool is read-only, what the returned structure looks like, or whether the result is large or expensive to fetch. Some behavior is implied by 'guide,' but explicit disclosure is missing.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the essential content—'Every question, option and verdict'—and adds the purpose clause efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 is fairly complete: it names the domain, the scope, and the intended reasoning use. It could be slightly richer by clarifying the relationship to the step-by-step checker tools, but nothing critical is missing for invoking it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and no deduction is needed.

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 resource: the complete Citizenship by descent checker guide, including every question, option, and verdict. This distinguishes it from likely step-by-step siblings like checker_start and checker_answer. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'list,' so it is not a full 5.

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' gives clear context that this tool is intended when an agent needs the whole decision tree rather than a single step. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when to use checker_start/checker_answer instead, but the intended use is reasonably clear.

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