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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real protocol beyond that: a hard cap of 2 calls per turn and the requirement to end the turn and wait for the user's next message. Those two facts materially change how an agent must sequence its calls and are not derivable from the schema or annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage conditions, then the negative case, then operational constraints. Every sentence changes agent behavior; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Single-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description covers the one thing that would otherwise be ambiguous: that the answer arrives as a user reply in the next message rather than as a tool result. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0% and the 'questions' array itself carries no description, though nested fields (id, prompt, options, label) do and the schema enforces minItems/maxItems/defaults. The description conveys only the 'multiple-choice' shape implicitly and says nothing about the batch limit of 3 questions, 12 options, or the 480-char prompt cap, so it neither compensates nor is required to.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ask the user a structured multiple-choice question') plus the goal ('resolve a genuine ambiguity'). Nothing in the large sibling set does the same thing, and the wording makes that distinction immediately obvious.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use criteria ('missing information you cannot infer... would save more than two tool calls of guessing'), examples (clusters, namespaces, charts), and explicit when-NOT-to-use guidance naming alternatives ('Do NOT use for questions you can answer from cluster_query, the page context, or a single sensible default'). This is a complete routing rule.

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