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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely non-obvious facts: it returns a shareable link and generation can take ~60 seconds, which is real latency context an agent needs. It does not say what happens on repeated calls despite idempotentHint=false, so it is not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the action and output come first, the latency caveat last. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise lack.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the return artifact (shareable link) and the expected duration. Combined with fully-covered schema descriptions and annotations, nothing material is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented including the kind enum and its default. The description's phrasing of what the prompt should contain echoes the schema rather than extending it, 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 ('Generate a published PitchBoost deck') and implies the distinguishing trait versus create_sample_deck/publish_deck by specifying 'published'. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so an agent still has to infer the boundary, but purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: call it with a prompt describing prospect, offer, audience and goal. There is no explicit when-to-use vs create_sample_deck or publish_deck, and no stated preconditions or exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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