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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the tool's output scope ('every question, option and verdict') and intended purpose, making the read-only retrieval behavior clear. It does not describe the exact output format, but for a zero-parameter static resource this is a minor gap.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the core content ('every question, option and verdict') and states the intended reasoning use. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and why it would be used. It could be more explicit about how the tree is structured or that it returns the complete guide in one response, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed since the tool accepts no input.

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 states that the tool provides every question, option, and verdict from the 'Which lever applies?' guide, which identifies the resource and content. It is understandable and distinct from siblings like checker_answer or checker_start, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 a use case: when an agent needs the full decision tree rather than a single step or verdict. However, the description offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools like 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.