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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what content is included (every question, option, and verdict) and that it is intended for end-to-end reasoning, but it does not explicitly describe the call's return shape, size, or whether this is a pure read operation.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the full scope ('Every question, option and verdict') and then states the intended reasoning use. Every phrase earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what the tree contains and why an agent would use it. It could be more explicit about how the tree is returned, but for a zero-parameter whole-tree read, the description is close to sufficient.

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 schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description has no parameter burden. No parameter documentation is needed, and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 tool as containing the entire decision tree ('Every question, option and verdict') and names its domain (Cryptoasset financial promotion checker guide). It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'return,' but the title and phrasing make the resource unambiguous and distinguish it from stepwise siblings like checker_answer and checker_start.

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?

'For reasoning end to end' implies the tool is meant for holistic reasoning over the full tree rather than single-step lookups. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of checker_start, checker_answer, or the enquiry_* siblings, nor does it give any exclusion conditions.

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