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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to re-state safety. It goes further by disclosing the response contents (ID, size, photographer, licence) and the real side effect of placement: Dockito keeps a copy and injects licence-required credit into the slide's source line — context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each following sentence carries a distinct payload (routing, return fields, placement snippet, rendering step). The inline edit_slides JSON is dense but earns its space; 'Then render to see it' is a minor trailing nicety.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the fields returned. It also closes the loop on the whole workflow (search → place → credit → render), which is everything an agent needs for a four-parameter, read-only discovery tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so doc, query, page and orientation are already documented, including the orientation enum guidance about full-bleed and split slides. The description only loosely echoes the query shape with 'by words'; it adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Free-licence stock photos ... by words') and immediately distinguishes itself from the deck's own library via the named sibling 'get'. An agent can tell this apart from get/upload/read without opening any 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 routing rule: 'Use the deck's library (get) first; stock fills gaps.' It also gives the downstream sequence — place with edit_slides, then render — so the agent knows both when to reach for this tool and what to do with its output.

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