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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It communicates the tool's content (questions, options, verdicts) but says nothing about return format, payload size, or staleness of the tree. For a zero-parameter read-only lookup these gaps are tolerable but not fully addressed.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. However, the colon-and-question construction ('which council handles it? guide') makes the sentence read awkwardly and forces a second pass to parse.

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?

With no output schema, zero parameters and no annotations, the description needs to stand on its own. It conveys what the tree contains and why to fetch it, but leaves out how the result is structured, which matters for an agent planning to reason over it end to end.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no inputs to explain. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed by presenting the tool as a dump of the entire tree.

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 names the resource precisely: the full decision tree of a Council finder by postcode, including every question, option and verdict. The word 'Every' and 'whole' distinguish it from checker_answer and checker_start, which by implication return a single answer or an entry point. The phrasing is slightly garbled ('handles it? guide'), but the resource is unmistakable.

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 for cases where the agent needs the complete branching logic rather than a one-off answer, which hints at when to prefer it over checker_answer. However, it never names the alternative tools or states an explicit exclusion, so the agent must infer the choice.

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