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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the tool returns the entire decision tree rather than a single step, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not mention output format, whether the tree is static, or any other behavioral details such as size or structure.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's contents and purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and the phrase 'every question, option and verdict' is specific without being 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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates what the agent will receive. It could mention the response format or how the tree relates to the sibling step-by-step tools, but the core purpose and content are clear enough for correct invocation.

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 the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter behavior, meeting the baseline for a parameterless 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 clearly identifies the resource as the complete decision tree for the 'Which contract document does this hire need?' guide, listing its contents: questions, options, and verdicts. This distinguishes it from siblings like checker_answer and checker_start, which appear to handle individual steps rather than the whole 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 phrase 'for reasoning end to end' provides clear context that this tool is intended for viewing or reasoning through the full decision flow in one call. It implies the tool replaces step-by-step traversal, though it does not explicitly name exclusions or direct the agent to checker_start/checker_answer for interactive use.

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