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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool returns a continue_url and that it is a preview-oriented step, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, data handling, or what occurs if both topic and data are provided, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and immediately gives the input requirement and the expected output. Every clause earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 workflow: input selection and return of a continue_url. With an output schema present and the parameter details already in the input schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps like conflict handling between `topic` and `data` are not explicitly addressed but are inferable from the schema.

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 schema already describes most parameters, and the description adds meaningful guidance by emphasizing that the agent should provide either `topic` or `data` (mutual exclusivity). It also clarifies the data-to-deck relationship. Since schema coverage is 80%, the description adds value beyond the schema without needing to repeat every parameter.

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 names a specific verb ('Preview'), a specific resource ('slide-deck outlines'), and the two input modes ('topic or inline CSV/JSON'). It also states the follow-up action ('continue creation in OutSlide') and the key output ('continue_url'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 the appropriate use case: preview an outline before building a full presentation in OutSlide. It clearly instructs the agent to provide either a topic or inline CSV/JSON, and explains what happens next. There are no sibling tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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