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

There are no annotations to communicate safety or side effects, so the description carries the full burden. It only says the tool 'is' the first question, not what calling it does, what it returns, or whether it mutates any state. For a tool with zero annotations, this is too thin to be considered behaviorally transparent.

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 with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the essential positional information about the tool and is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation coverage, so the description should clarify what the agent can expect from calling the tool. The phrase 'first question' gives a reasonable clue, but the description does not specify the return shape, whether it just displays the question, or how the response feeds into checker_answer. It is minimally viable but leaves important context implicit.

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, so the description does not need to explain any inputs. The baseline for a parameterless tool is high, and there is nothing missing here from a parameter semantics perspective.

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 tool as 'the first question' of the Venue capacity checker decision guide, which gives some positional context. However, it lacks a concrete action verb such as 'returns' or 'starts', so it is more of a label than a functional description. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like checker_answer 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?

Usage timing is implied: because it is described as the 'first question', an agent can infer it should be called before checker_answer or checker_tree. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to choose, so the guidance is present only by implication.

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