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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only states that the tool is the first question. It does not disclose whether invoking it starts a new session, simply returns the question text, or has any side effects, and gives no indication of how it behaves beyond being a label.

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 clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the essential identity of the tool for a zero-parameter operation.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It never explains what the first question looks like, what output an agent should expect, or how this step connects to checker_answer and checker_tree, leaving important operational context missing.

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 detail for the description to add. The minimum baseline of 4 applies because the empty schema already fully documents the absence of arguments.

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 and description clearly identify this as the starting point of the Smoke control checker decision guide and specifically as its first question. This distinguishes it from the checker_answer and checker_tree siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'asks' or 'returns'.

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 'first question' implies this tool is used to begin the decision guide, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus checker_answer, checker_tree, or the enquiry tools. No alternative tools or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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