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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the content of the tool but not its behavior: no explicit statement that it is a read-only retrieval, no mention of response format, side effects, or any operational constraints.

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 that communicates scope and purpose compactly. It is slightly redundant with the title ('The whole decision tree') but still adds useful specificity about the contents.

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 gives sufficient context: an agent can infer the tool returns the full decision tree for reasoning. It lacks explicit return-format details, but the simplicity of the tool keeps the gap small.

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 an empty input schema, so there is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 applies; 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 clearly identifies the resource: the complete Class Q eligibility checker decision tree, including every question, option, and verdict. It distinguishes itself from step-by-step siblings like checker_start and checker_answer by presenting the whole tree for end-to-end reasoning, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'provides'.

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 this is used when the full tree is needed, contrasting with the interactive sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over checker_start/checker_answer, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.

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