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 it is the first question, implying it returns or presents a question, but does not describe whether it creates any session state, has side effects, or requires authentication. It is too minimal to inform an agent about expected behavior beyond the bare fact it starts a guide.

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, succinct sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the key information ('first question') and stays within a reasonable length. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source of context. It tells the agent this is the first question of a decision guide, but does not specify what the tool actually returns (e.g., a question object, a prompt, a status) or how the agent should handle the response. For a starting tool, this is minimally acceptable but leaves room for ambiguity about the interaction pattern.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered vacuously. The description does not mention parameters because none exist, which is appropriate. According to the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is warranted; there is no missing parameter information to compensate for.

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 states the tool's purpose: it is the first question of a decision guide. It names the specific resource ('Heat network duties checker') and implies an interactive step. It distinguishes itself from siblings like checker_answer and checker_tree by specifying it is the starting point. However, it does not explicitly say it initiates a session or presents a question, though 'first question' conveys that.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. The description does not mention that this should be called first before checker_answer or checker_tree, nor does it state any conditions or prerequisites. The agent must infer from the name and title that it starts the flow, but the description itself provides no explicit routing or usage context.

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