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 reveals only that this is a question, giving no information about side effects, state initialization, required authentication, or what happens after calling. For a tool that likely starts a multi-step guide, this is a meaningful 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, and the key identifying phrase 'first question' is front-loaded. It could be slightly more explicit about what calling the tool does, but as a length/structure matter it is appropriately tight.

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 explain what an agent can expect from invoking the tool. Saying it is the 'first question' implies a return of that question, but it does not mention whether it initializes state, how to proceed to checker_answer, or any response shape. The surrounding decision-guide flow is left mostly to inference.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter behavior left to document. Per the 0-parameter baseline, the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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' of a decision guide, which conveys it is the entry point, but it never states an action (e.g., 'starts the guide' or 'displays the first question'). It is not a tautology, but the purpose is more implied than explicitly named.

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' implies this tool should be used at the start of the checker flow, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose it over checker_answer, checker_tree, or the enquiry tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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