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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: no image rendering, cheap operation, and specific layout flags for overflow, overlap, and sub-legible fonts.

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 focused sentences communicate purpose, behavior, return contents, cost characteristic, and usage guidance without redundancy. The most distinguishing fact (no image rendering) is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, read-only inspection tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. It also provides the key sibling distinction from preview_slides.

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 the only parameter, presentation_id, is already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and names the resource ('layout of every slide'), immediately clarifying scope. It also draws a clear contrast with preview_slides by emphasizing geometry-level readback without rendering images.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool — 'catch mechanical layout problems while editing' — and points to preview_slides for the final visual pass. This gives the agent direct routing guidance, not just a vague context hint.

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