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 only states that this is the first question, but it does not clarify whether calling the tool returns the question text, initializes a session, or has any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's operational 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, short sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified: it could be reworded to state an action and expected outcome without losing brevity. The structure is acceptable but not ideal for operational clarity.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what invoking the tool returns or what starting the guide entails. The current phrase is ambiguous—it could be interpreted as the tool itself being a question rather than a tool that returns or presents the first question. This leaves an agent uncertain about the response and next steps, making the definition incomplete.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously), so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds a mild hint that no input is required, which is consistent with the empty schema, and no compensation for param documentation 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 a specific resource (the Class Q eligibility checker decision guide) and its position ('first question'), but it lacks an explicit verb indicating what the tool does when called. It reads more like a static label than an operational instruction, and it does not differentiate from related siblings like checker_answer or checker_tree.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name 'start' implies it is the entry point, but the description does not state this explicitly, nor does it mention any exclusions or relationship to sibling tools such as checker_answer or checker_tree.

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