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 only states what the tool represents, not what happens when it is called, whether it starts a session, what data it returns, or whether any state changes occur.

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 redundancy and the core identity is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the expense of behavioral detail captured elsewhere.

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 an entry-point tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the caller will receive and what to do next. It provides neither the return shape nor any connection to checker_answer, so an agent cannot fully understand the workflow from the description alone.

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 no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. This is the appropriate baseline 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 states that the tool is 'The first question of the CQC registration checker decision guide', which identifies its role as the entry point. However, it lacks an action verb like 'starts' or 'displays', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as checker_answer or checker_tree beyond the positional clue in the name.

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 name 'Start' implies it should be called first, but the description never states this or mentions alternatives, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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