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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the entire set of questions, options, and verdicts in the guide, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention output format, size, or how the tree is structured, leaving some ambiguity about the exact response shape.

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 sentence that immediately communicates the tool's complete scope. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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?

Given the zero-parameter schema and simple resource type (a full decision tree), the description is largely sufficient: it names the content, its purpose, and the scope of coverage. The main gap is the lack of detail about what the returned tree looks like, but this is minor for a tool whose function is straightforward.

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 has 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies here because the lack of parameters makes parameter documentation trivial.

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 states a specific resource ('the whole decision tree' for the 409A safe harbour guide) and its scope: every question, option, and verdict. It is distinct from sibling tools like checker_answer or checker_start because it emphasizes full-tree coverage for end-to-end reasoning, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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' clearly implies this tool should be used when an agent needs the complete decision tree rather than a single step or answer. It gives clear context for when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly contrast it with checker_answer or checker_start.

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