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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool is 'the first question' of a guide, without explaining what happens when it is called, what it returns, whether it asks a question, or how it relates to subsequent steps. This is a minimal hint rather than transparent behavior.

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 with no wasted words and the key 'first question' idea is front-loaded. It is concise, but it is also so minimal that it borders on under-specification, so it does not earn a higher score.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what invoking 'start' actually does and how it fits into the decision guide flow. It only states that it is the first question, leaving the agent without enough context to know what result to expect or how to proceed to checker_answer or checker_tree.

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 is empty and the tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and no parameter information is needed.

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 the 'Which lever applies?' decision guide, which gives some sense of its role as a starting point. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement, and it largely restates the title, so the tool's actual action remains vague.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like checker_answer or checker_tree. The phrase 'first question' implies it comes at the beginning, but there is no clear statement about prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.

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