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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of revealing call semantics. It only states that this is the first question, without indicating whether invocation is read-only, whether it resets or initializes state, or what the agent should expect in the response.

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 one short sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though it partly restates the title and could have used its brevity to add behavioral or output context.

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 zero-parameter entry point, the description gives a minimal but recognizable sense of purpose. However, because there is no output schema, the description should more explicitly describe what is returned, such as the first question text and available answers, or how the agent should proceed afterwards.

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 input schema is empty, so the schema fully documents the parameter surface. With no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 identifies the tool as the first question in a 409A safe harbour decision guide, so an agent can infer it is the entry point. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an action ('returns', 'starts'), and it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as checker_tree or checker_answer.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any alternative. It does not state that this is the recommended starting point, nor does it mention sibling tools for continuing the guide, such as checker_answer or checker_tree. Prerequisites and conditions for use are also absent.

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