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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds the behavioral detail that the response includes 'all slide data', which is useful, but it does not disclose other traits such as authentication requirements, potential response size, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and adds synonym context without unnecessary fluff. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the resource, the identifier, and that slide data is included. However, without an output schema, a bit more detail about the response structure could be beneficial, but it is not a critical gap.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter with a clear description ('Presentation ID'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves a slide presentation by ID, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('slide presentation') plus synonyms to disambiguate. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_document and get_sheet by explicitly targeting presentations, and from list_slides by indicating it fetches a single presentation including its slide data.

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 implies usage when you have a presentation ID, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_slides or get_document. There are no exclusions or comparative guidance, leaving the appropriate context for the agent to infer.

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