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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the content ('every question, option and verdict') but does not disclose behavior such as return format, size, whether it's a static snapshot, or any side effects. The agent knows what the tool represents, but not what happens when invoked.

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?

A single sentence that is compact, front-loaded with the core content, and free of fluff. Every word contributes to describing the tool's purpose.

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 there are no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool offers—the full decision tree for end-to-end reasoning. It could mention response structure, but the complexity is low enough that the missing detail is not critical.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description has nothing to add about parameter meaning. With 0 params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 states the resource ('the HMO licence checker guide') and its scope ('Every question, option and verdict'), which clearly conveys this is the complete decision tree. It distinguishes itself from siblings like checker_answer or checker_start by emphasizing the whole tree for end-to-end reasoning, though it lacks a direct verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 'for reasoning end to end' implies this tool is meant for full-traversal reasoning rather than isolated lookups. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over checker_answer or checker_start, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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