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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that this is the first question, without explaining what happens when the tool is invoked, whether it initializes any state, or what the returned content looks like.

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 content. It is efficiently front-loaded with the key information, though it is somewhat under-specified in terms of behavior.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate: it tells the agent this is the entry question of a decision guide. However, without an output schema or annotation, it lacks information about the expected response, session behavior, or how it connects to the rest of the guide.

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 description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. The empty schema with 100% coverage is sufficient, making parameter semantics a non-issue.

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 tool as the first question of the Cryptoasset financial promotion checker decision guide, which clearly conveys its role as the entry point. It does not use an explicit action verb, but the resource and stage are specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling tools at a basic level.

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 'first question' implies that this tool is used at the beginning of the decision guide, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like checker_answer or checker_tree.

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