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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds what annotations cannot: it acts on the user's behalf like a real button press, requires explicit user consent beforehand, and (with no output schema present) documents the return value 'clicked' plus the post-answer snapshot. It stops short of stating outright that the answer is consumed and cannot be replayed, which the non-idempotent hint implies but never says.

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?

Three short paragraphs are front-loaded with the core action, then routing rule, then return values. Every sentence carries weight, though the middle paragraph is dense enough that the press_button exclusion could be surfaced slightly earlier for scannability.

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?

With four parameters at full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gaps: workflow position relative to get_state/next_step, the press_button boundary, the consent requirement, and the return shape. Only edge behavior (e.g. what happens if option text does not match any prompt option) is left unstated.

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 100% and every parameter (draft_id, option, prompt, inputs) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces parameter sourcing by pointing at snapshot.prompts[].options, .title for disambiguating duplicate button texts, and .inputs for pre-filled values, adding mapping context but no syntax beyond the schema.

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: it answers a dialogue prompt shown by the guide by pressing the button the user would press. It also explicitly demarcates itself from the sibling press_button, which handles form buttons and Ja/Nej questions in snapshot.actions, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when: only for questions returned by get_state and next_step as prompts (prefill from last year, confirmation of a small deviation, reminder). Explicit when-not: form buttons in snapshot.actions go to press_button. It even adds a procedural rule (explain the question to the user and obtain an explicit answer first), leaving nothing to inference.

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