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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'first question' and does not explain what the tool returns, whether it advances state, what the user sees, or whether it requires any prior steps. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 that is easy to parse. However, it largely restates the title, which limits the added value, though it remains clear and front-loaded.

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 decision-guide entry point with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not say what the agent should do with the response, how to proceed to checker_answer, or what the user should expect. An agent likely needs more context to invoke and handle the tool correctly.

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 100% schema coverage, so the description adds no parameter details and none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 the tool presents the first question of the 'Which food hygiene position are you in?' decision guide, which clearly identifies its role and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like checker_answer or checker_tree, but the phrase 'first question' implies the entry point.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. It is implied that this is the starting point of the decision guide, but the description does not say when to use it versus checker_answer or checker_tree, nor does it describe how to proceed after the first question.

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