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

Annotations are not provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the core behavior: consuming a choice and returning the next step or final verdict. However, it does not mention side effects, whether this advances a session state, potential errors for invalid question IDs or out-of-range choices, or whether the operation is idempotent. This is acceptable for a simple query tool but leaves room for more transparency.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core behavior and expected outcome. It is concise with no filler, while still conveying the essential purpose and flow.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main function but omits some context an agent might need: what the 'final verdict' looks like, whether there is any statefulness (does it alter the question sequence?), and how it relates to checker_start/checker_tree. These gaps are not critical for a straightforward tool but are noticeable for a complete understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that `choice` is the index of the chosen option and that `question` is the question id, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not specify how the question id is obtained (e.g., from checker_start), the format of the question id, or the range of valid choice indices beyond the schema's minimum of 0. This partially compensates for missing schema descriptions but not fully.

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 states a specific action: given a question id and a choice index, return the next question or final verdict. It identifies the tool's key resource (question/answer progression) and distinguishes it from likely alternatives like checker_start. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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 description implies the usage context: it is used after starting a question sequence and submitting an answer. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as checker_start or checker_tree, nor does it mention prerequisites. The guidance is sufficient for a straightforward state-advance tool but lacks explicit routing.

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