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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the content (every question, option, verdict) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what the output format is, whether it may be large, or any side effects. The description carries minimal behavioral information beyond the static nature of a decision tree.

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 sentence that front-loads the core content and purpose. It contains no filler and every phrase earns its place, effectively communicating scope and intent in very few words.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the main point: the complete decision tree for end-to-end reasoning. However, it does not describe the return structure, the form of questions/options/verdicts, or how the output maps to the guide. This is adequate but leaves some ambiguity for an agent needing to interpret the result.

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 the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter docs.

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 complete decision tree of the 'Which council handles it?' guide, containing every question, option and verdict. It distinguishes itself from step-oriented siblings like checker_answer and checker_start by emphasizing the full tree. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'returns' or 'provides', relying on the title and phrasing to imply retrieval.

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 the tool is intended when the agent needs the full decision tree rather than a single step. However, the description does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage guidance is present but only implied, not explicit.

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