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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the core output contract but says nothing about whether answering persists state, whether prerequisites exist (e.g., invoking checker_start first), how invalid 'choice' values are handled, or whether the 'final verdict' terminates the flow. For a stateful answer-submission tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded with inputs then outputs, with zero filler. It earns its place efficiently, though it could have used the spare room to add a prerequisite or error-handling note.

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?

The tool sits in a multi-step flow (siblings checker_start and checker_tree), yet the description provides no flow context: how to begin, what invalid choices do, or what the response shape looks like—especially with no output schema. A minimal multi-question flow needs at least one of these clarified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must define the parameters, and it partially does: it clarifies that 'question' is an ID (not text) and 'choice' is an option index (not a value). However, it does not specify the ID format, choice bounds, or zero-based versus one-based indexing beyond the schema's minimum: 0.

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 uses a specific verb ('return') with concrete inputs ('question id', 'choice index') and outputs ('next question or the final verdict'), making the core purpose clear. The title reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like checker_start or checker_tree, leaving the agent to infer its distinct role.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as checker_start, checker_tree, or enquiry_describe. The need to call this after a session is started is only implied by the phrase 'next question'—an agent receives no explicit routing context.

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