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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool contains every question, option, and verdict, but it does not disclose the response format, whether this is a static read-only retrieval, or how much data will be returned. It also does not clarify whether this is the underlying data structure or an interactive step-through flow.

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 compact sentence and wastes little space. The opening title 'The whole decision tree' immediately communicates scope, and the description elaborates with the specific content categories. A slightly more action-oriented opening would improve it, but it is still efficient.

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 conveys the main content of the tool reasonably well. However, it does not clarify how this tool relates to the sibling checker tools or what an agent should expect in terms of invocation flow, leaving some ambiguity about whether this returns raw data or an interactive prompt sequence.

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, so there is little for the description to add to parameter semantics. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool provides rather than on input arguments.

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 decision tree covering 'Own, fractional, jet card or charter' options, including all questions, options, and verdicts. It lacks a direct verb like 'retrieve' or 'return', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling checker tools, but the scope is concretely specified.

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' implies the intended use case of walking through the entire decision tree rather than a single step. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over checker_answer or checker_start, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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