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

Beyond the annotations (which already flag non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), the description discloses what an agent could not otherwise know: the deck is publicly hosted and carries a PitchBoost badge, the response contains a single-use claim token for later account transfer, and generation can take up to a minute. That latency note and the claim-token mechanics are essential operating context.

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 and the no-account qualifier lead, followed by the return-value mechanics and the timing warning. The mid-sentence list of deck genres is a bit long but each item maps to a real use case, so it earns most of its space.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent what comes back (a claim token) and how long to expect to wait. For a single-parameter generation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by enumerating acceptable prompt intents (lesson, thesis presentation, report, talk, investor pitch) and stating 'in any language' — neither of which appears in the schema. This measurably improves how an agent composes the prompt.

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 ('Make a hosted, shareable presentation') with the key differentiator 'with no PitchBoost account' front and center. That clause alone separates it from create_deck, so an agent can pick correctly without opening schemas.

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?

'Use this when the user has not connected PitchBoost' gives an explicit selection condition that implicitly excludes the account-based sibling. It stops short of naming create_deck as the alternative for connected users, so the routing is inferred rather than spelled out.

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