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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotency/open-world profile, so the description only needs to add context it does: a PitchBoost badge is stamped on the output, a single-use claim token is returned for later account migration, and generation takes up to a minute. The latency disclosure is especially valuable for agent timeout planning. It does not state that repeated calls create separate decks, but the non-idempotent annotation already covers that.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the capability and scope, then the output artifact (claim token), then the usage condition and latency. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it explains the hosted deck, the badge, and the claim token. Combined with the stated latency and account-free usage condition, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and set expectations for the user.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the prompt's content and 1000-character limit. The description adds only 'from a short prompt', which is a restatement rather than new syntax or format guidance. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Generate) and resource (hosted, shareable sample pitch deck) and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling create_deck via the 'no PitchBoost account' qualifier. An agent can route between the two without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the selecting condition: 'Use this when the user has not connected PitchBoost.' That is a clear when-to-use rule that implicitly contrasts with the authenticated create_deck sibling. It does not name the alternative or the inverse condition ('if connected, use create_deck'), so it falls just short of a 5.

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