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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds two behavioral facts annotations cannot carry: it returns a shareable link and generation takes up to ~60 seconds. It does not say whether repeated calls create duplicate decks (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or whether the call blocks during those 60 seconds.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first, then scope, output, and latency. The middle genre enumeration is long but serves retrieval and intent matching, so it mostly earns its place.

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?

Covers purpose, inputs, output (shareable link), and latency, which is enough for a two-parameter generation tool with no output schema. It stops short of explaining the relationship to get_rebuild_status or list_decks, leaving post-creation flows implicit.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the kind enum with its default. The description only implies that the prompt drives generation and that language is free-form; it adds no syntax, format, or length guidance 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 concrete verb+resource ("Make a presentation in the user's PitchBoost account from a prompt") and enumerates the presentation genres it targets, which disambiguates it from the read/status siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from create_sample_deck or rebuild_deck, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 genre list (lesson, thesis, report, workshop, sales pitch) and "in any language" give clear guidance on when this tool is the right choice. No exclusions or comparisons to create_sample_deck / rebuild_deck are offered, so the agent must infer which generator to pick.

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