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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool contains (the tree) and not what it does when invoked (e.g., returns the full tree, is read-only, or has no side effects). This leaves the agent to guess the tool's runtime behavior.

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 one short sentence with no filler words. It could be slightly improved by starting with a verb to make it a full sentence, but it is efficient and readable.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core idea (the full guide tree for end-to-end reasoning) but does not say what the agent will receive back or how to choose it over siblings. Slightly more guidance would make it complete.

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 input schema is trivially 100% covered, so the description has no parameter documentation burden. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not interfere with parameter understanding.

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 precisely: the whole decision tree of the Venue capacity checker guide, and enumerates its contents ('every question, option and verdict'). This helps distinguish it from likely stepwise siblings like checker_answer or checker_start, though the lack of an explicit verb (e.g., 'returns', 'provides') stops it from being 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?

'For reasoning end to end' implies the intended use case—consulting the full tree rather than a single node—but there is no explicit contrast with alternatives or exclusions. The agent must infer when this is preferred over sibling tools.

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