present_choices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burdenasi and it succeeds. It discloses the return payload (choiceSetId + pageUrl), instructs to share pageUrl, and warns against a common misbehavior (substituting a markdown table, passing canRenderImages=false for ChatGPT/Grok). It also explains the dependency on get_choice_status before create_purchase, so an agent knows the tool's side effects and its place in the larger workflow.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is a long paragraph that could benefit from bullet points or visual grouping, but it contains no filler, redundant phrases, or vague safety warnings.

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?

Even with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return values (choiceSetId + pageUrl), the next action (share pageUrl), guards around creating purchases, and a special instruction for ChatGPT/Grok (pass canRenderImages=false). This is a complete and self-sufficient definition for an agent to invoke the tool correctly within a multi-step workflow.

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. It clearly explains wants[{q}] for products to compare and canRenderImages=false, and implies agentIntroRu via the chat-sharing instruction. However, it never explains the 'kind' enum (alternatives vs bundles) or the optional 'id' field within wants, leaving real ambiguity for a 4-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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a comparison page (choice board, 2–4 options with pros/cons).' It immediately differentiates this tool from siblings like get_choice_status and create_purchase by defining its exact trigger ('MANDATORY when search_products returns 2+ similar hits or clarifyHint.action is present_choices'). The output is also made explicit (choiceSetId + pageUrl), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit 'when to use' conditions by naming the precise triggers and even says 'call immediately, do not wait for «сравни».' It also gives explicit 'when not to' instructions, such as 'NEVER substitute a markdown table for this page' and 'Do NOT create_purchase until get_choice_status shows chosen.' This is exceptionally clear routing versus alternatives.

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