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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output ('next question or the final verdict') but does not disclose any side effects, state changes, or whether the answer is recorded permanently. The behavior beyond the core return is opaque.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and output. It wastes no words, though it could add a brief usage note without becoming bloated.

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?

The description covers the basic input and output, but given there is no output schema and no annotations, an agent might not know how to format the request, interpret the returned 'next question' structure, or know whether the final verdict is a terminal state. The description is adequate for a simple step in a flow but leaves room for ambiguity in a multi-step conversation.

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 clarifies that 'question' is a question id (though the schema says string) and that 'choice' is an index. However, it does not explain the format of the question id, how to obtain it (presumably from checker_start), or the range/meaning of the choice index beyond what the schema's minimum 0 implies.

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 states a specific verb ('return') and resource ('next question or the final verdict'), and clarifies that it takes a question id and a choice index. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like checker_start or checker_tree, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 tool is used when the user has answered a question (has a choice index) and wants to progress, which gives some context. But it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus checker_start or checker_tree, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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