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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate that the tool returns the complete set of questions, options, and verdicts for end-to-end reasoning. It does not, however, disclose the output format, size, or how the tree is structured, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 front-loads the key facts: every question, option, and verdict, the specific guide, and the purpose. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states coverage and intended reasoning purpose. A minor gap is the lack of detail about the output representation or traversal structure, but the sibling names and simple nature of the tool reduce the need for more.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds content-level meaning rather than parameter-level details, which are unnecessary here.

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 'Which food hygiene position are you in?' decision tree and names its contents: every question, option, and verdict. The phrase 'whole' and 'end to end' helps distinguish it from the stepwise checker_start/checker_answer siblings, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this tool is for full end-to-end reasoning over the whole guide, versus a single step in the checker flow. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer checker_tree over checker_start or checker_answer, nor does it list any exclusions.

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