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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the informational content returned: every question, option, and verdict. It does not describe the output format, size, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only and side-effect-free.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It lacks a finite verb like 'returns' or 'provides,' but it is compact and immediately communicates the tool's full content scope.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool contains and how it can be used for end-to-end reasoning. The main gap is the absence of explicit output format details, but that is minor given the simple static nature of the tool.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. No parameter-specific explanation is needed, and the description does not introduce any ambiguity.

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: the whole decision tree of the Heat network duties checker, containing every question, option, and verdict. It implicitly differentiates from the stepwise checker_start/checker_answer siblings by presenting the complete tree rather than individual steps.

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 this is the tool to use when you want the full decision structure rather than an interactive step-by-step flow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the sibling alternatives.

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