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 states the output—next question or final verdict—but never clarifies whether submitting an answer has side effects, whether choices are persisted, whether IDs are validated, or what happens on invalid input.

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 front-loads the inputs and then states the output. Every part earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the core call is understandable, but the description is not fully self-sufficient. It omits the return shape of the next question or final verdict, the source of `question` IDs, and the tool's relationship to checker_start and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does add meaning by implying `question` is an identifier and `choice` is an option index. It still leaves gaps: it doesn't explain where valid question IDs come from, whether `choice` must belong to the given question, or what the actual range of valid option indexes is beyond the schema's minimum of 0.

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 names a specific operation—'return the next question or the final verdict'—and the two required inputs. It is clear and actionable, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like checker_start or checker_tree, and 'question id' doesn't exactly match the schema property name `question`.

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 title 'Answer a question, get the next step' and the phrase 'Given a question id and the chosen option' imply this is the tool to advance a checker flow. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as checker_start or checker_tree.

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