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 hints that this tool exposes the first question of a guide, but it does not say whether calling it returns a prompt, creates session state, has side effects, or what the response contains.

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 with no filler, front-loading the resource and its position in the guide. It is not overly verbose, though its brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and usage 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description still needed to explain what happens when the tool is invoked and how it connects to checker_answer and checker_tree. The single phrase leaves too much to inference for an agent to confidently invoke and interpret the tool.

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 input schema has zero properties and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 resource (MiCA requirements checker) and its stage ('first question'), but it never states the action the tool performs, such as returning, displaying, or starting a question. The word 'first' weakly distinguishes it from sibling decision-guide tools, but the missing verb leaves the purpose implied rather than explicit.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus checker_answer, checker_tree, or the enquiry_* tools. However, 'first question of the ... decision guide' implies that this is the entry point, so usage context is present but not clearly spelled out.

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