choose

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 explains the UI behavior ('card with one button per option'), the resulting user message ('as if the user typed it'), and the critical blocking constraint: 'After calling this tool, you MUST stop and wait for the user's response.' This is rich, actionable behavioral context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage guidance, then behavioral details, then the critical wait instruction. Every sentence contributes essential information, and the example makes the interaction concrete without bloating the text.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete: it covers what the tool does, when to use it, what the user sees, how the result arrives, and the required post-call behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents title, prompt, and options clearly. The description adds an illustrative example but not significant new parameter semantics, so it appropriately sits at the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Present the user with a set of options to choose from.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on user choice among discrete alternatives, and the rest of the description reinforces this purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Call this tool when you need the user to make a decision between discrete alternatives' and adds a when-not: 'don't ask the user to type their choice in chat when you can present clean, clickable options instead.' This gives the agent clear direction on when this tool is appropriate.

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