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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only labels the tool as a question, without stating that calling it returns or presents the first question, whether it creates any session state, or what the agent should expect in the response.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns and how the decision-guide flow proceeds. It does not mention the response format, the next steps, or how this tool relates to checker_answer and checker_tree, leaving important context to inference from sibling names.

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 properties and zero required parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. This is the appropriate baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 title 'Start: Revalidation requirements checker' plus the description 'The first question of the Revalidation requirements checker decision guide' make the tool's role as an entry point reasonably clear. It identifies the resource and its position in a flow, but it does not use an explicit verb and does not differentiate from siblings like checker_answer or checker_tree.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. 'First question' weakly implies it precedes checker_answer, but the description never tells the agent to use this tool to initialize the guide or when to prefer a sibling tool.

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