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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content and purpose of the tool but does not explicitly describe behavior such as returning the complete tree at once, whether it is read-only, or how the data is structured. The description is adequate but lacks richer behavioral detail.

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, information-dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the resource and scope, and the title reinforces the content without adding redundancy.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient on its own. However, it lacks guidance on how this tool relates to the sibling checker tools and what form the returned tree takes, which would improve completeness for an agent deciding how to use it.

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, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 as the Subject access request builder guide decision tree and specifies its scope: every question, option, and verdict. This implies a reference tool that provides the full tree, which distinguishes it from the step-based checker_start and checker_answer siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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' suggests the tool is for holistic reasoning across the whole decision tree rather than step-by-step interaction. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like checker_start or checker_answer, leaving the routing partly to inference.

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