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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that this is the first question of the guide, without clarifying whether calling it initializes state, returns a static question, resets an in-progress session, or has any side effects. For a 'start' action, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded by naming the tool's position in the guide. It could arguably be more informative without becoming bloated, but as a concise description it performs well.

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?

Given that the tool is simple, has no parameters, and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: an agent can reasonably call it to get the first question. However, it lacks any context about the checker flow, return shape, or relationship to checker_answer and checker_tree, so it is not fully complete for an agent operating without prior domain knowledge.

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 the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs.

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 resource as the 'first question of the Employment rights checker decision guide,' which makes the tool's purpose reasonably clear: initiating the checker and presenting its first question. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'starts' or 'shows,' but the name and phrasing together convey the intended action. It is somewhat distinguishable from siblings such as checker_answer and checker_tree, though not explicitly contrasted with them.

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 provides no guidance on when to call this tool versus siblings like checker_answer, checker_tree, or submit_enquiry. There is no mention of prerequisites, session state, or typical invocation flow. An agent must infer from the name that this is the entry point to the guide.

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