Ask with the host form

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is interactive (form UI), blocking/synchronous (returns the selected answer in this tool call), and restricted to clients supporting form elicitation. This is useful but does not cover multiple-selection behavior, locale semantics, or consequences of client non-support.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core action, the UI mechanism, the return behavior, and the usage condition. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 essential interaction model and synchronous return, and the schema covers constraints, but several context gaps remain: no mention of multiple-selection behavior, locale handling, or why 'consequential' matters. As a standalone definition without annotations or output schema, it is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameter meaning. It only weakly implies the role of 'question' and 'options' via the phrase 'Ask one consequential question' and 'returns the selected answer,' but gives no guidance on 'locale', 'multiple', or option structure semantics beyond what the schema field names already suggest.

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 clearly states the action ('Ask'), the resource ('one consequential question'), and the mechanism ('client native MCP form UI'), and notes that the answer is returned synchronously. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools because it emphasizes the native form UI and form elicitation, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with grill_me_ask.

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 gives an explicit precondition: 'Use only when the client supports form elicitation.' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, but it does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the condition given.

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