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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states what the tool 'is' rather than what it does. It does not mention whether calling it has side effects, whether it creates or resets a session, or what the agent should expect in return.

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 only one sentence and contains no fluff, but it is closer to a noun phrase than a useful tool definition. It is concise without being informative, essentially restating the title with the added detail that this is the first question.

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 0-parameter starter tool this may seem simple, but the absence of any output schema, annotations, or relationship to sibling tools leaves key questions unanswered: does calling this tool display a question, start a new session, or return a state object? The agent cannot predict the tool's behavior from the description alone.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 identifies the resource (Subject access request builder) and its position (first question), so an agent can infer it is the entry point. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'starts' or 'presents', and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like checker_answer or checker_tree beyond the word 'first'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. 'The first question' weakly implies using it at the beginning of a SAR request, but no alternatives, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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