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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description only names the question; it doesn't disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it mutates anything, whether it returns the question text, or whether it advances a state machine. For an agent selecting among sibling tools, this provides almost no behavioral context.

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 one short sentence and mentions the decision-guide name, which is contextually useful. It wastes no words, though it could have added a front-loaded verb such as 'presents the first question...' with no meaningful length cost.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no parameter schema details, the description is nearly all the agent has. It doesn't explain what 'start' returns, how it connects to checker_answer, or whether the tool requires prior state. For a flow-starting tool in a sibling group, this is under-specified.

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, so there is nothing the description needs to explain. The absence of parameters is already fully visible in the schema, making this dimension minimally demanding; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 named decision guide, which gives the agent some sense of a specific resource. However, it doesn't state what action the tool actually performs (does it present the question, initialize a session, or start a flow?), so it's still somewhat vague about its function relative to siblings.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus checker_answer, checker_tree, or the enquiry tools. The sibling list suggests this is part of a guided flow, but the description doesn't say that calling it first is required or what state it puts the conversation into.

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