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

With no annotations, the description has full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but it only describes content coverage ('Every question, option and verdict') and does not mention side effects, auth needs, output format, or whether the tree is static. It gives no safety or execution context for a read operation. This is a significant transparency gap.

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, focused sentence that wastes no words and leads with the most important content ('Every question, option and verdict'). It is well-suited to the tool's simple purpose and quick to parse.

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 conveys the tool's scope but omits details about the returned data's structure or how an agent should consume the tree in conjunction with sibling tools like checker_answer. Without an output schema or behavioral details, an agent has only a general sense of what to expect. For a no-parameter, no-schema tool, it is minimally adequate but not 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, so the schema provides no information to compensate. The description adds value by explaining that the tool exposes the entire decision tree, even though no parameters are involved. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 as the 'Waste carrier, broker and dealer checker guide' and states that it contains 'Every question, option and verdict,' which clearly conveys that the tool returns the entire decision tree. It distinguishes itself from siblings like checker_answer and checker_start, which handle individual steps. However, it lacks a direct action verb such as 'returns' or 'provides.'

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 'for reasoning end to end' implies the tool is intended for holistic traversal through the checker guide, giving some context on when to use it. There is no explicit mention of alternatives or conditions when a sibling tool would be more appropriate. The guidance remains implicit rather than directly stated.

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