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 behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool is the first question of a guide; it does not state what happens when called, whether it initializes state, returns a question, or has side effects. This is a notable gap for a checker-style tool.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key fact that this is the first question and names the specific decision guide it belongs to.

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?

The tool is structurally simple with no parameters and no output schema, and the description conveys its entry-point role. However, the absence of behavioral details and annotations leaves uncertainty about what a call to checker_start actually returns or does, so completeness is only partial.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 specific named decision guide, 'Where to incorporate: narrow the shortlist.' This makes the tool's entry-point role reasonably clear, though it lacks a direct action verb and does not fully distinguish it from the checker_* 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 'first question' clearly implies that this tool should be used at the start of the decision guide. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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