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 discloses the stateful behavior (progressing to next step or verdict) but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether answers are recorded, if the flow is mutable, or if calling this repeatedly changes state). The lack of clarity on whether 'choice' is a 0-based index into options and the absence of error handling details are gaps.

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 succinct sentence, front-loading the core behavior. It earns its place without fluff, though it could add a second sentence to clarify parameter semantics without becoming verbose.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the essential flow but lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of the next question or verdict), possible failure modes (e.g., invalid question ID), and prerequisites (e.g., must have called checker_start first). It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only names 'question id' and 'chosen option' without clarifying the exact format of 'question' (e.g., is it an ID string?) or that 'choice' is an index into an options list. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's basic types and required fields, missing the chance to explain the relationship between parameters.

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 a clear action ('return the next question or the final verdict') and identifies the key resource (question id and chosen option). It distinguishes itself from a general lookup by specifying the step-by-step flow, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like checker_start 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?

The description implies the tool is used to advance a quiz or decision flow by answering a question, and the mention of 'next question or final verdict' gives context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., starting a check with checker_start or viewing the tree with checker_tree), leaving some inference needed.

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